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.

 

 

What Being A Conservative Means To Me.

If you’ve been following my blog for a while you’ve witnessed me going through a number of journeys. A music journey, a personal journey, a political journey, a spiritual journey, and so on. I’ve covered important books, funny conspiracy theories, biased news, and a whole range of other topics. I’ve shared stories from my own life, my thoughts and predictions, memes, you name it.

For quite a while I’ve been contemplating my own definition or my own take on what it means to actually be a conservative.

First of all: what does the word conservative mean?

According to a quick Goggle search it means the following:

  1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
  2. (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.

The first definition makes it sound like creativity and conservatism are incompatible, that you would somehow burn your phone and declare war on silicon valley, moving into  a cave somewhere. The second one is also of interest. What if I decided to barter? Would bartering exclude me from being a conservative? Or what about non-governmental voluntary redistribution of wealth on a small limited scale? Would that also exclude me from the conservative label?

If people were to ask me about conservatism what springs into my mind are these things in the following order:

  1. Heritage: population groups, family trees, buildings, artworks, stories, history, languages, museums, music, flags, food, etc;
  2. The environment: plastic, emballage, air pollution, food pollution, water pollution, deforestation, extinction, honey bees, etc;
  3. God: a proper religious alignment and a realisation that humans are not at the centre of the universe in terms of importance. We are not God, we are bellow God striving to be better. This could in theory be lumped into the first category, but that wouldn’t ring true for Scandinavian Christians, South American Muslims, or African Jews. If you acknowledge the world of spirit and choose to live your life in accordance with such things (regardless of religion or spiritual tradition) it is a major deviance from “secularism” or “atheism” where you would deny the existence of the other worldly (in most cases). You would probably deem it irrational due to lack of tangible evidence and credit any religious feelings to “severe superstitions.” Any stories of supernatural phenomenons would be dismissed as manifestations of mental disorders or sensationalism in order to attract attention. Those who hate religion hate it with feverous passion and would probably be very happy to stomp it out permanently.

To me this list makes sense because it all boils down to the act of conservation. You don’t want your natural habitat to be destroyed, nor do you want the cultural markers of your group to be eviscerated. You acknowledge the world of spirit, following in the footsteps of countless ancestors, rather than declaring yourself (or any other human) for God.

I think a great number of people would disagree however with my list since declaring oneself a conservative seems to mean that your core value is money worship in this day and age. I however disagree with this notion.

If you are a Christian, for example, you must be well-aware of how money-worship is not supposed to be the focal point of your existence. Sharing equally with your brothers and sisters in Christ is an overarching theme….

In terms of freedom, a much cherished value on the conservative side, I have this to say:

You genuinely owning your own property makes you empowered. If you don’t want your house to be confiscated by the bank or the government, you would not only have to own your own land, but you would also need the ability to defend your land.

You owning the means of production would also make you empowered in terms of your own business. Under all other circumstances you are not.

Leading a sustainable lifestyle would also empower you. Owning your own farm, being energy independent, owning your own water, would put you on top of your own pyramid. No water bills to pay, no electricity bills to pay, no antibiotics or poisonous chemicals in your steak, etc;

The issue is exploitation and insatiable greed. It is currently impossible to not be somehow complicit in the global abuse of labour. Everyone has to make money somehow, the question is whether you will build someone else’s dream or your own.

If you choose to construct something for yourself you’ll have to have quite a start capital in order to be truly “in control.” In most cases you won’t, which means that you’ll depend on infrastructure controlled by others. Even if you were to be perfectly empowered, monopolies could potentially squeeze you out of business in the long run. When huge companies create a habit in people where they get used to franchise merchandise costing close to nothing, it will force other lesser known “brands” to lower their prices due to the expectations that have been implanted into the heads of consumers.

This in turn fuels “wage slavery” and “sweat shops” regardless of whether or not the merchandise features the face of an outspoken celebrity vehemently opposed to such activities. Unless you control the means of production, you control nothing.

Consumers in turn might think that they have a million options when all of the different roads are essentially controlled by the exact same people. I guess the key is to create the illusion of diversity, with few corporations gaining massively on people’s innate tribalism: like record labels.

“Hip Hop stinks” or “my artist is 10X better than your artist” are manifestations of tribalism regardless of whether or not it all comes down the same conveyor belt.

Those who are smart would make a profit of those on the left and those on the right, arm tribe A and tribe B, offer high-end products to the wealthy while simultaneously selling low-end products to the poor.

Most wouldn’t be able to do this however, so trying to empower oneself on a small-scale is in most cases a challenge great enough.

If you choose to grow your own produce you are indeed empowering yourself in addition to helping the planet. Not only will you get vegetables free from poisonous pesticides, they will also be plastic-free, transport-free, more nutritious, tastier and cheaper. Ironically enough you’ll not be growing the economy if you end up being self-sufficient in terms of your greens.

Likewise if you were to ask a relative to help you with something it would amount to an exchange of favours, hopefully beneficial to both parties. Much of “running-a-family” falls into the category of  bartering. One member will handle one task, another member another task, and so on and so on, depending on how big the household is. This will also fail to grow the economy since you are not hiring outside help.

It will be cheaper for you to keep things inside the family, but in terms of “the economy” it would be much better if every single interaction you had throughout your life was based on nothing but financial transactions. The ultimate extreme-capitalist Utopia would be one where there was a charge for everything and no human relations came free of charge.

This sounds cold and “inhuman.” Another variation of extreme-capitalist Utopia could be one where no workers are needed and the working class is permanently removed. No one will probably write or say these type of things in the mainstream media for the simple reason that if thousands or millions of people figured out that their replacement and eventual removal was the end-game of technological automation there is a danger that they might attempt to “kill the machine” right now. There is no justification for keeping excessive hordes of people around on a planet with limited resources but for now you are not supposed to dwell on that fact. What if you were to rebel?

It is virtually impossible to not spend money or cost money if you are simply alive.

Let’s say that you were to spend your entire day in your house. Bedridden.

This uninspiring activity would still cost you.

Going to the toilet is not free.

Drinking out of the tap: not free.

Flushing the toilet: not free.

Keeping food in your fridge, even if you choose not to eat anything: not free.

A cup of tea: not free.

Turning on the light: not free.

Charging your phone: not free.

Wifi: not free.

Even laying in a house half-dead isn’t free since you’ll be charged for the luxury of having a roof over your head in one way or another. Even if you are co-living with others there might be other expenses or activities that you are contributing to. So no, dying a slow death in your bed will still cost you and in most cases if you don’t pay up you’ll be kicked out of your bed. So is the bed ever really yours? Probably not.

None of this sounds like freedom because none of it is.

If anything it sounds like a great pitch for family values, because if everything costs and freedom is unobtainable you can at least share the burden and the struggle with your own tribe. This would probably make everyone’s life way better than everyone being atomised and on their own. In theory it would enhance your tribe’s survival chances since these are greatly reduced if you are one lone person.

If you collect rainwater and have access to your own water well you will be empowered.

If you somehow create your own plumbing and sewage system, you will be in charge.

If you can create your own energy, you will not be subservient.

If you can produce some or all of your own food you will be your own master.

If obtaining freedom is of importance to you it will be imperative to become independent from both private businesses and government institutions.

Only then will you be free to sit in your own house without anyone billing you regardless of your own productivity.

Only then will you be free…

….but you will still not be free from God.

 

 

 

 

 

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