Link

Please Spread The Word!

And if you like this book, please purchase it in paperback

Click Here for a copy of the next book in the trilogy ‘We Are Awakening’

Click Here for ‘We Come Back’ and explore the last in the series ‘Light Is…’.

Advertisements

More Than Human

Featured

There’s a place,
Where you can set your illusions on fire
And watch them burn.
Out of the ashes of all lost hope,
A newly conceived dream rises.
The endeavor of peace…
Of brotherhood…
Of a united species with a single objective.
The attainment of truth.
A future that hangs in the balance.
Injustice persists,
When good men fail to act.

There’s a place,
Where with every passing day,
More blood is shed in wars over resources.
More of the arctic melts away,
Flooding the shores.
Greed and lust for power masquerades,
As the assertive hand of peacekeeping.
The clock slowly ticks away,
Whilst each and every idea is gift-wrapped,
As the intellectual property of the new world.
Exposure to toxic chemicals is increased.
Injustice persists,
Since good men fail to act.

There’s a place,
In which knowledge flows
Through the fabric of reality…
In which nothing is as it seems,
Happiness is a choice,
And the truth will set you free.
Peace represents a state of harmony,
Created out of mere kindness…
By the desire of the species
To share with one another
Without condition or consequence
In such a way that has no end.
To act in kind,
Even against all the odds.

Apocalypse Surival & Middle Classes

Featured

As poverty spreads, the middle-classes are now becoming affected by the world changes. Not to mention, the recent climate effects. Yet, how is it that certain personality types within the middle-classes are more prone to experiencing a complete mental breakdown, which causes them to defy their own survival instincts? Carl Jung and Freud often debated regarding the influence of the human beings will to live and will to die. Otherwise referred to as a death-wish. In circumstances of survival, an individual will often seek to group up  middleclasscartoonwith individuals that could benefit their situation, allowing for a higher rate of survival through team effort. Yet, not all individuals are capable of acting rationally after their entire world has been shattered. I have discovered no record of this phenomena within Thanatology, however, I consider the research performed into this subject most fascinating. The poor have each other. The rich have money for bodyguards and supplies. The middle classes have none of the above, making them a hazard in prolonged survival situation with no way out. The survival mentality and capability of the individual is in essence defined by their psychological and physical state, past experiences as well as relevant knowledge. Subconsciously, the middle classes would feel drawn towards the individuals that they would wish to die with, as the life that they have known has ended. The poor choose their friends for different motives than the rich, yet both social groups tend to associate with one another on a more personal basis than the middle class does. They like to separate themselves from society. I have associated this phenomena with the death drive. During times of trauma, we are drawn to individuals that we subconsciously believe will aid the transition of consciousness that occurs throughout a social and psychological breakdown. The conscious mind struggles with the knowledge of the subconscious mind. The knowledge persists that they will not be able to return to their former life, compromising their capacity for psychological survival. Middle Class individuals have a disconnected social life, leaving very little social support networks in times of need. Now, imagine the average house-wife, the type that follows a very rigid, habitual pattern in everyday life. The one that drops her kids off to school 100 yards away in either direction in three different schools in a large vehicle, such as a Landrover, and then spends her day at the Salon, shopping or purchasing a manicure. The types that will do almost anything to avert poverty and seek comfort out of luxury. Even within a functioning society, these individuals are displaying inclinations towards hysteria, violent outbursts, almost exhibiting tendencies of an OCD bipolar. Their routines and habits have become coping mechanisms. During an apocalypse hard choices arise, if the three children and the wife are in different locations to far to travel to, only one individual can be saved in the end, but which one? One does not attain a cushy life in modern society without a cut throat nature and blind ignorance to the truth. To live with such choices knowingly can shatter the psyche beyond the point of return, although they know there was no other way. Historically, these are the individuals that used to run the town and village councils, the ones that would run other individuals out of time. They like their life the way it is, and will do anything to preserve it, even if it is impossible. In a life or death situation, they do not distinguish between having an argument and shooting an innocent getting in their way. Yet, it is pettier than that, they attempt to put their middle-class life back together. These are the types that struggle to leave their homes after being struck by natural disasters in the area, unable to cope with the loss, they still follow their routines up to the point of obsession, if not destruction. Not the type of woman, you’d like to encounter during an apocalypse. Within modern media, they have become stereotyped as the hysterical women that manage to sabotage the entire plan of the main characters, yet often avert death until the end of the film, whilst they do not understand the consequences of their own actions, they simply see the short-term view and instant gratification of the situation with the false that life will simply return to its former state. Whereas most individuals are able to cope perfectly fine with the existence of aliens, government conspiracies or the corruption within more than half of society, these types are unable to even discuss the subject as it makes the increasingly uncomfortable. They’re the types that are happy not knowing.describe-yourself2

The male equivalence of this personality type is often an overterritorially active, they will neglect the group survivor mentality and simply resort to protecting their family unit to extreme degrees. If any of the children are female or have medical conditions, such as asthma, these tendencies become even more severe. They often act in a manner, which is overprotective to the degree self-destruction. One has to remember that during a mental breakdown, the normal functioning of the psyche is disrupted and the individual is under a constant sway of emotion that compromises the presence of mind. The male equivalence is often driven into behaviour by the loss, which could be classified as overterritorially violent, if not manic. Overall, this personality type in an apocalypse situation, in family groups or in large groups, is the worst kind of survivor, as they have a complete lack of reality. Dependent upon how much the society is affected, the individual has no previous experience of handling real life situations due to their upper middle class standing. Simply stating the obvious fact, they are often acting out of extreme fear in circumstances of survival, in which they will sacrifice the lives of others for their own or their family unit.

The Right To Bear Arms

Featured

1488076_10152216983010432_783025746_n

Guns are the two edge sword of society. One cannot live with them, yet one cannot live without them. It is the right of every day citizen to defend himself against tyranny and fend for his own survival. Truth be told, most individuals neglect the purpose behind the construction of firearms. They were originally designed to save lives and prevent bloodshed. It present a cost-effective and less time-consuming method of self defense in comparison to mastering martial arts teachings or developing psychic capability. Consequently, one must ask oneself, why the sudden, recent increase in shootings, since the issue of gun control has been mentioned? Yet, more importantly, why does none of the news coverage add up? Although the entire matter screams sloppy CIA coverup, which can be backed up by eye witness statements. It should be noted that any perpetrator would avoid circumstances, in which there exists the probability of being outnumbered, outgunned or outwitted. Gun regulations shift the responsibility of protection towards the authorities, prohibiting the individual to even act in self-defense without the risk of getting sued. This is merely the beginning of the police state. 484796_10152233019505432_1070873326_n

Good individuals obey the law, whereas criminals do not. It has come to the point, where the individuals deliberately seek vulnerable targets based upon the status of firearm regulation. Would you want your victim to possibly retaliate during the act? Therefore, the individual most likely to be susceptible to fear tactics and coercion by their perpetrator. No one wishes to lose their lives, if all they could have done to survive is cooperate. At least that is what we are told. The truth is often rather adverse. 1604499_10152217087150432_493251910_n

The time has come for humanity to recall their 2nd Amendment Rights and act upon them. The right to defend yourself against foreign or domestic threats, even the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. The American forefathers (after the eradication of the native Americans, of course) predicted that the rise of corruption is inevitable. Ever empire throughout human history has at one point faced the 1601568_10152235151115432_822489202_ndownfall of human rights and true democracy. And every single time, a revolution occurred that corrected the imbalance of power that had been prolonged for years, at times decades. Humanity has lost its caring streak… To help others nowadays means to put ourselves on the line for another that may simply view us as a  meal ticket after a successful court case for saving their life. The world has forgotten to appreciate what it means to be grateful for the actions of another. For them risking their life for ours. The time is approaching for that very aspect of society to change. Within a corrupt system, all we have is one another and the sooner we realize that, the better.

Rise of the Anti-Hero

Featured

index

“Once peaceful revolution is impossible.Violent revolution is inevitable.” – Abraham Lincoln

As I progress my way up the levels of society, as an individual that was born into a middle-class family, the hypocrisy within the modern world became evident early on. I noticed that every professional individual has a psychological drive that allows them to do as they do. At times, even forces them to the brink of burning themselves out entirely. That which drives them inwardly to achieve that which they set out to do is clearly resembled within their true psychological make-up. Every doctor strives down that particular path for a reason, as it equals voluntary suffering for anyone without a large bank account. Truth be told, it is almost similar to a promise. Something, they promise to themselves or to those around them. Something, that keeps them going at the very core of their being. Nowadays, professionals are expected to uphold the lie. To abide by the politics of their environment. Pharmaceutical drugs, for instance, are not designed to cure, they are conditioned to prolong the cause and result in side-effects. The Hippocratic oath has become a joke, as professionals have their careers ruined by large corporations for a differing opinion. The truth about life extension is only experienced by those that have worked within the bottom of the system and truly comprehend its consequences. Individuals are kept alive for years in agony with very little speech capacity or ability to use anything other than a bedpan. And even that cannot be used without prompting. After years of caring for others in almost inhumane circumstances, the purpose behind my actions was revealed to me. To end suffering. Not by the means of death. Euthanasia can only be established within a society that does not shun and ignore death as ours does currently. Death is a mere transition of consciousness. Energy cannot be destroyed, it is merely transferred. The end of such a life should be a celebration, years of being unable to maneuver or actually form proper sentences must be torture. Personally, I would rather be die before suffering for over 10 years with almost no cognitive function, no ability to be of use to the world. Especially the relatives suffer, their loved one has basically died already. There is no possible way of communicating most of the time. Their loved one is a mere shadow of their former self, which prolongs the grieving process exponentially, at times even complicates it. The corrupt system chooses to ignore these individuals. Not as much since the compassionate care act within the United States, but in other countries needless suffering is still prolonged. This leads me to the promise that is made by every professional, apart from the Hippocratic oath. Their inner drive. Certain professionals choose money, power or control as the reason behind their actions, which is clearly evident by the contradicting opinions within the current Cannabis debates. Those against Medical Marijuana are supported by large corporations and powerful individuals that hold financial control over their lives. Reputations are ruined for one word in the wrong place. Truth be told, how many have been killed by exposing governmental and corporate cover-ups. The rich and powerful do not shy away from taking a life to protect their status. Corporate psychopaths have ruined thousands, if not billions of lives, yet they still remain within their seat of power. How did this happen? When did it become bad manners to kill the bad guy? In a recently published article of mind, societies focus towards the anti-hero was clearly noted. We are drawn to them, because they do as we cannot. If we were to suddenly execute every single peadophile within the system, how long would it take until we execute the pope or the EU bankers? Imprisonment is no solution. If you control the judge and the jury, there is no prison that can hold you. There are certain individuals walking upon this planet that are untouchable by the law, yet not by the people. We are drawn to taking the law into our own hands, because the law has in essence failed us all. The corruption within the system has come to infect all that was once just and virtuous. In order to crawl up the ranks one has to be corrupt as the individuals on top, very few decent individuals claw their way up there. Truth be told, the system is facing its inevitable collapse and we can all sense the brewing storm. That sensation with the gut, that things will get worse before they get better. That may be true, yet martial law being enforced on certain parts of the planet and the continual increase in natural disasters due to HAARP as well as global warming leave us with just enough time to act before the end. A takeover awaits us. The economic war that has been waged since between the illegalization of marijuana and the end of world war one. It was at the point of no return, when the entire face of civilizations had been changed by the simple means of applied social engineering. It was at that point in history that true economic warfare originated and it is still continuing today. The blueprints for the current economic design for this planet were designed within mid 1830’s, if not earlier…we are now merely facing the endgame.

1601273_574717675943821_156968458_n

Why Europeans Don’t Wanna Leave Britain…

As a very early millennial, I am a part of a generation that wishes nothing to do with me for the most part. To those of my own age, my beliefs are a temporary insanity that will pass with solemn regret for my ‘xenophobic’ actions. At best, my views irritate them and unintentionally make them cry. At worst, my views trigger aggressive responses designed to demean before silencing me. This is not a singular occurrence. Every day, more violence is aimed toward those who express ‘patriotic’ views (i.e. views relating to their own nation and fellow man).

Almost 4 million EU citizens guaranteed right to stay after Brexit even if there’s no deal.

The idealistic notion that anyone should be allowed or even supported in their attempt to live anywhere is a noble goal, which  we should all strive for. However, no matter how hard a single country tries to provide for almost half the entire population of another, they never will. It is simply impossible. After Brexit, [i.e. after benefits were capped for EEA-citizens], I lost my job, because there was no electricity, heating and hot water in my building unsafe for habitation. I was barely able to afford the rent while paying for university. So, before you begin to judge, I supported Brexit during the day while scavenging for food at night. As many others, I have lived on the streets of England with the natives. When I listened to the stories of veterans abandoned by the very country they fought for, my heart went out to them, but there was nothing I could do to help. In Europe, joining the military used to come with certain privileges. For example, PTSD treatment, shelter as well as daily meals. Now, our veterans are lucky not to be assaulted, tortured and then killed on the streets. They traded in one warzone for another. In the daily struggle for survival, they are forced into a transient lifestyle without hope of settling anywhere permanently. Why should we, as Europeans, expect to be treated any differently than how we treat those willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of the country we wish to reside in?

Forced Cultural Assimilation Is The Issue,
Not Europeans

We, as foreigners, support Brexit to stem the flow of economic migrants surging into Britain to take advantage of the welfare system. Most of us study or work very hard to live in England, and we do not like to see others taking the piss. Brexit [as a political decision] was not based on fear but survival. France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain have embraced millions of young, male migrants. Statistically, less than One In 40 Male Migrants has gained employment since emigrating to any EU country. Less than One In 100 Female refugees from Sharia-controlled countries are in some form of employment. Due to the low number of female refugees, this number includes Muslim women who emigrated before as well as during the crisis.

To the point, the average Brit does not verbally attack, slander or outright demean Europeans for their heritage, unless those Europeans are overly assertive of their ‘right to remain’ without making any contribution. From personal experience, I have witnessed many Europeans deliberately antagonise the English, only to pull the ‘race-card’ once the police arrives. Some cleverly use it to avoid prosecution by being eligible for better trained civil defence attorneys from their respective EU country.

Historically, the reasons for British hostility toward outsiders are not unfounded, but it is also typical behaviour for island people. Shortly after WW1, the civilian populace would almost point and cry out, if they encountered a non-local in the middle of their detached, rural town. Just as depict in Agatha Christies ‘Poirot’, they were not too shy about criticising our accent, behaviour or attitudes when they did not quite fit in. [Isn’t that just village life, though?!] At the time, they lost millions before they had even  pulled all their troops from every corner of the lost empire, simply to march them over the line all at once. The joke is to this day that the military generals would have actually continued with this strategy until only a handful of nobles remained. Until they dug under the trenches, they had lost almost their entire male population [except those who were too young, disabled or on their deathbed]. Throughout this tragedy, if you had the ability to walk and fire a pistol, you were sent over the line. As traumatic as war can be, those days were worse. Over 2/3 of British soldiers never returned. [As many as 74,187 Indian soldiers died during the war and a comparable number were wounded.] The returning soldiers often suffered severe shell-shock, which meant they were often not stable enough to marry or procreate. Before the leftover population had properly recovered from the effects of WW1, the next world war was already in progress. Although this was by design, that’s a story for another time. During WW2, an extremist fraction of Labour sided with the Nazis, [just as they are now siding with the Hamas Brotherhood incl. the implementation of Sharia]. After the fall of the Nazis, the Jews began to fund Labour to secure its allegiance. It was an imperative to prevent the repetition of events from a political standpoint that would not go against their vows. Many traditional Rabbis were heavily influenced by the belief that WW2 occurred as a result of buying German land, so those who fled to England returned to the old practice of ‘renting’ instead of buying land, reinforced by their religion. It is tragic irony that they began to buy British real estate after a few generations before  history began to repeat itself.

Britain has been involved in every ongoing war for the last 1000 years. British grandparents still tell tales told to them by their grandparents of WW1 & WW2, just as ours do. It is their way to honour their sacrifices by keeping them alive, just as it is ours. There was never a time in the last 1000 years, when Britain was actually at peace. Its politics were always influenced and funded for the worse or the better.

It was never racist, bigoted or politically incorrect to share an opposing view on historic events, ask yourself, why it is now? Over the last decade, we have begun to favour what the media reports instead of what our elders tell us. We have become disinterested in hearing about their sacrifices while they often mock our struggle with daily life as though it was some sort of ‘phantom pain’. The rift between the generation has grown exponentially due to the integration of a new lifestyle into every aspect of our societies. The younger generations have discarded physical interaction to be a part of a global, but largely digital community. However, when local communities stop communicating with each other, we cannot attain a state, in which we may have both: a local, but also global community, in which we are for the highest good of the locals just as much as strangers.

Before it became politically incorrect to speak openly, the mainstream funding of the country was devoted to suppressing the gap generation, [the largest generation in British history]. Ironically, it has become rather noticeable that the opinions of younger generations receive much greater support, when they fall in line with the political agenda of the current leadership. Although that is what is expected of any generation, the millennial generation is subjected to extreme levels of peer pressure, often even to violent degrees. Europeans in support of Brexit experience similar from Europeans who have adopted the Anti-Brexit stance.

The Reason Why We Wanna Remain So Badly:
Our Countries Are Warzones

There are many excuses why we, as Europeans, would prefer to stay in the United Kingdom, which has nothing to do with welfare payments. Once the DWP has made Europeans ineligible for JSA or Universal Credit, most with the intention to rinse the system have left the country. Many countries, such as Germany, actually pay much more than England on a monthly basis. Hence, there are often other reasons. At times, a criminal record or even arrest warrant can make life back home very difficult for Europeans, just as it does for British hiding abroad. More frequently, we have gained full or temporary employment and established a social circle. In other words, we have integrated. We have a job, friends and/or romantic relationships that may not survive the transition [i.e. we have no intent to marry as a route to dual-citizenship yet, which would ironically fortify post-Brexit ties between residents more than any trade agreement]. As selfish as our decision to be against Brexit might be, more people make important decisions out of [temporary] self-interest instead of what would benefit them long-term…and just for laughs, I deeply apologise on behalf of Europeans, unwilling to support the country that they reside in after the people made their decision.

Important Fact:

British Liberals are deporting  Europeans rather than Economic Migrants

In addition, the interest in free healthcare, particularly as it is no longer free, has ceased for Europeans but not economic migrants. Another utopian ideal [this time, free medical treatment for decent citizens that would suffer or perish otherwise] has crumbled under the weight of excessive use. Although Europeans have begun to only attend hospital or their GPs in emergency situations, their caseload is growing along with the waiting times. This is not merely a discrepancy, it indicates an in increase in serious conditions, likely not of European origin. [Remember, the Black Plague was germ warfare on steroids due to rodent infestation, but originated from the Middle East.] This is not unexpected due to the ‘minor’ disease outbreaks across Europe.
On rare occasions, our reason is that we have made England and its people our home. In plain English, we fucking love, you crazy racists, because deep down we are just as racist. You are our kind of crazy. We are the same…

For Europeans, living in England is like Marmite, you either love it or you don’t, and if you [as a whatever], do not, you should go to another country where you can be happier. Truly ask yourself, what is the real reason you are here? Maybe there is something you are trying to avoid, perhaps trouble back home?

It is vital that the British understand, Europeans [without exceedingly close ties to their homelands] have no real information on what is happening to them. Under censorship, our information mainly comes from the media…and as gullible as we are, [compared to the average Corbynite], some of us believe their propaganda. The continued protests to overthrow Brexit, while the same MPs demand a second referendum, are a political manoeuvre to delay the deadline. If it can be delayed long enough, the foreign population has imported the numbers required to win a second referendum. If no second referendum takes place, they will have bought additional time, in which to aid ‘not-so-illegal’ border crossings.
When Brexit was enshrined in law by the Queen, our separation from the EU became inevitable. However, something can exist in law only, but still be at risk of exploitation by deals made after the fact. It can be a mere smokescreen, only existent on paper. In reality, it can be the kind of red tape that binds a nation to a totalitarian overload still resentful over the peasant uprising [i.e. the vote] As stated here, we have no rights other than those we embody on a daily basis. If we do not use them, we are sure to lose them. Our ancestors, British or European, fought, bled and died for our rights to do as we please, to be anything we strive for…But, we have repaid them poorly so far by either going against establishing a free and self-governing Britain or not enough. As entire countries  have already been crushed under EU rule, such as Greece, more will follow if they do not leave. For Europeans and British alike, Brexit is our chance to do better by forming a more equally beneficial alliance across the anglo-sphere. For decades, Britain remained silent as the influx of migrants became unsustainable. All the while, a quiet rage was building. It is the same rage, which is building across Europe. We may act as though Europeans are discriminated against by the British, when we know we, as a whole, are being discriminated against, or we may do something about it. For example, we can open up a dialogue with each other only to discover we actually share the same hopes, wants and dreams, which cannot be said about those who wish to enforce Sharia law.

Important Fact:

Economic migrants do not play by the same rules. They will readily deceive women in order to marry them. In Switzerland and Liechtenstein, it is a long-standing tradition to marry the ugly duckling and divorce them after the legal required timespan has elapsed and they cannot be deported.

In truth, we know instinctively what is happening across Europe. On a base level, we can sense a storm is brewing in territories that have been very hard to defend in the past. Even liberals deporting liberals are too scared of the concept to admit that they are turning it into a reality. It is a death-sentence for them, their fellow men and possibly their country. Yet, they seem to be unable to confront this dark truth on an emotional level. For them, there is no reality, in which that is a possibility. Although there are some, like Corbyn, who are pathologically incapable of admitting to failure, hence imagining it would shake the foundation of their perceived reality. Conversely, the majority [who support the EU, migration etc.] choose to avoid facing the trauma that would alter their perceived reality until they have no choice. This mindset is often deadly as is historically documented. It, in turn, weakens Britains internal defences. While Europeans are deported or choose to leave for countries with higher crime and terrorism rates, more economic migrants are imported. Just as the European people need any ally they can get, the British do as well. It would be strategically and morally beneficial to seize the opportunity before it is too late.

3 Misconceptions About Happiness

Just as water runs downhill, the human heart also tends to revert to its basest instincts…

Misconception #1: Happiness is Random

This is still a very common myth about happiness and it is completely plausible to assume that happiness has no rules. For all we know, it could come or go just like the wind.
Why? Simply because happiness is complicated, most people don’t know what triggers it. If you ask someone (try it and you will see) what happiness is they might answer with a stream of buzz phrases [such as health, money, friends, family, job security etc.] Are they right? Well, yes and no.
In general, all of these things have the potential to increase how content we feel, but only if we know how to make gratitude a larger part of our lives. For instance, it can teach us how we can enhance our life through the little things.
While happiness seems like a complicated concept, it appears to be as random as roulette. Although, we know, roulette is far from random, we continue to believe that such a thing as ‘randomness’ actually exists…Truth be told, we simply do not know all the parameters of roulette, just as we do not know the exact ‘mechanisms of happiness’. Like with roulette, if we knew all parameters, we could predict the winning number with almost every turn. Psychologists may claim that we have not discovered all the pillars of happiness yet, but even if this statement was not false, we would still know enough about happiness to know that we can influence our emotional state to make our lives more fulfilling.

Misconception #2: Happiness is Either Given To You or Not

As you may know, true happiness is unconditional. This means that it does not abide by the conditional factors, upon which we base our moods, lives, even our very identity. Therefore, half of our conditional happiness is determined by our genes, so [to some extent] happiness is given. However, the other half of conditional happiness is affected by our lifestyle [i.e. what we do on a daily basis]. Ultimately, how happy we are on a conditional level is our responsibility. Conversely, if we do not understand how happiness works, then it will seem as though happiness is given to some more freely, whereas others cannot find any at all. Once we know that conditional happiness is a byproduct of other things, which are equally as conditional, we may grasp the concept of unconditional happiness. Prior to the ebb and flow of real life, happiness is neither given nor self-made: It is an infinite state of being that co-exists eternally with our finite existence. Anyway, since few can imagine being truly happy in the complete absence of anything physical, we must first focus on the part of our happiness that we feel we have control over [however imaginary or non-externalised said control may be].

Misconception #3: I’ll be happy when I achieve…

Have you ever thought that if you only would achieve X or Y, you will be happy for the rest of your life?
I did and I jumped from one achievement to another always expecting to find happiness eventually. Not only does it not work, it is the nature of the mind that drives us to such behaviour. Sure, we are content for a short time after achieving a goal, but the level of happiness drops soon after [accompanied by feelings of frustration].
It is grim, yet sobering realisation that happiness does not work in that way. We might hope our next successful endeavour or any other single event will bring sustaining happiness, but it is condemned to end in disillusionment and disappointment. Relying on a single event to make us happy permanently is the same as eating a large meal with the expectation to never be hungry again. We are all morons, falling for the same con repeatedly, myself included. However, the solution is hiding in plain sight…Just as we need to nourish our bodies regularly, we need to foster happiness with the same regularity. Imagine happiness as a puzzle, which requires multiple different pieces to form the whole picture. If we miss out some or mistakenly place them in the wrong field, a part of the whole picture will need to be reassembled and put together the right way…

German Cops Join The Peoples Protest

Gallery

This gallery contains 114 photos.

Originally posted on THE ETHNIC-EUROPEAN:
SHARE NEWS CENSORED BY MEDIA We depend on donations and book investment (Team Work). Please share our stories and purchase from our bookstore. Русский: В правой колонке главной страницы есть опция выбора языка. Deutsche Es gibt eine…

Rate this:

The Debasement of Relationships

“To analyse the psychology of political violence is not only extremely difficult, but also very dangerous. If such acts are treated with understanding, one is immediately accused of eulogizing them. If, on the other hand, human sympathy is expressed with the Attentäter, one risks being considered a possible accomplice. Yet it is only intelligence and sympathy that can bring us closer to the source of human suffering, and teach us the ultimate way out of it.”

Of all the misconceptions about love, the most pervasive is the belief that ‘falling in love’ is love. No matter whom we fall for, we sooner or later fall out of love, if the relationship continues long enough. This state of ecstasy is a part of a very subjective experience, but it is always temporary without exception. Moreover, the experience itself is sexually motivated to a large extent. The beginning of a budding romance is filled with crackling, erotic tension. It is electric, yet it can never last. That is not to say we cease feeling for the person, whom we fell in love with, but the honeymoon phase always ends and when the rose-tinted glasses come off, we are bereft of our illusions about who that person truly is…

Through pain-staking experience, we learn not all relationships are based on love. Many may have begun with a deep sense of mutual affection, whereas others never stood a chance. Inevitably, we must all face up to the fact that most relationships are based on some form of arrangement. Under the semblance of friendship, we use honesty in a selective, rather pre-calculated manner for the sake of personal gain. On the pedestal of undying romance, we idealise prospective partners to such a degree that we set expectations that can never be met. In the anticipation of marital bliss, we enter a life-long commitment to what may turn out to be a complete stranger…in so doing, the majority of our relationships are founded on our need for self-deception. As people grow used to each other, they form unspoken agreements. We make each other feel better through transparent lies. For example “No honey, that three strand comb-over totally hides your receding hairline. [Sorry, the almost complete lack of hair.]” or “No dear, that dress is not three sizes too small. [Sorry, but you cannot be a size zero and still be a healthy weight.]”
When a relationship lacks the necessary stability to survive free expression, its foundation will crack under the weight of what goes unsaid. In other words, it is short-lived, unless we accept that any relationship is hard work. We must be mature enough to understand we will not agree on everything and develop the tolerance to accept the opinions of others even when they oppose our own.

Marriage differs from other life-long relationships in one simple respect. It is a contractual arrangement, certified by the State, sanctified by the Church and audited by the Bank. Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement, an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding. Similar to a basic insurance policy, our contributions are mandatory to keep the arrangement afloat, but we are always at liberty to discontinue our payments, try another or go without. Continuing with the previous analogy, if we were to imagine how this kind of arrangement affects each gender, we will discover that what we endure is not so different anymore:

Historically, if a womans premium was her husband, she would pay for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect and her very life until death. She would knowingly enter into a state of life-long dependency without the ability to separate. Nowadays, if a womans premium is her husband, she has the right to keep her name, protect her privacy, be as independent as she likes and spend her life with whomever she wishes [in most parts of the world]. Although emancipated, she earns less, but she no longer has to tolerate unwanted advances, arranged marriages, FGM or prove her worth by acting more like her male counterpart. She can stand up and speak freely as long as she accepts the consequences. Her freedom may have come at a great cost for the family unit, but it did not spell its undoing.

Historically, if a mans premium was his wife, he had to have proven he can earn enough to afford matrimony (by providing food, clothing, shelter etc.), handle the responsibility of monogamy, maintain appearance and social status in the community. Once proven, marriage heightened their social status, just as fulfilling the social expectation to father children afterward did. However, it did not end there, any indiscretion on his part would typically cost him all of the above. Nowadays, if a mans premium is his wife, he lives longer, spends more and on average has more sex. He still earns more than unmarried men, however, he is less likely to be employed. Particularly, when the job involves travel or relocation. Plainly speaking, businesses learnt that uprooting children dents their image, so they began to select single men for higher positions usually designated for a married man. It did not take long until they realised the benefits of hiring single men across the board. Before the corporate community promoted the single lifestyle, how many years the marriage of an employee lasted was a testament to their capacity for loyalty, dedication as well as commitment. With every additional year, they were viewed as more of an asset due to their increased reliability. In recent years, divorces are treated as though they are evidence of how devoted these men are to their jobs in place of their families [although corporations would never admit to anything of the kind].

Statistically, the effects marriage might not have radically changed, however, they have not improved by much either. Betrothed men still continue to outlive their unmarried counterpart, but also their own wives. Forced and arranged marriages are still more common amongst women than men, as is genital mutilation, including circumcision… Truth be told, the institution of marriage was perhaps never as beneficial [for all] as it was intended to be. Marriage has seen happier days, yet the vow of holy matrimony in an illiberal Christian democracy was never designed to be ‘liberal’ and there is nothing wrong with that. If it had been as liberal as it is right now, it would not have been the democracy that we know…It would have encouraged child marriage long before now, instead hiding its paedophilic nature behind # feet thick walls. It would have shared the secret documents in the Vatican vault, collected from all over the globe. Plainly speaking, it would be as uncharacteristic as willingly housing a substantial number of enemy combatants. Albeit, the Christian Church was forced to integrate long before 2006. It first began, when its followers took the texts too literally. In these extreme cases, devoted men and women violated the law of the land in favour of divine law. One case, in particular, in which a teenager killed his father, impregnated his mother against her will and then raped their child. Such intense biblical archetypes shook entire communities, for whom the Christian faith was not an optional denomination. The law was put into the position to choose between reason and blind faith based on an incomplete text translated from. Aramaic [that still contains more than a few mistranslations]. Although DNA had not been discovered, inbreeding was known to cause peculiar psycho-physical side-effects, so people began to question the Church and pastors had to come up with answers to quiet them. Ultimately, the justice system overruled the Church, which had already folded quite willingly at this point. Frankly, it had no interest in genetic anomalies, whose ability to contribute financially was non-existent. This is how we ended up with a more symbolic interpretation of the Bible. Their self-interest, for once, went hand in hand with their selfless service to the people.
At the core of religion, each belief system serves as a control mechanism of the people. For example, there is a recent fatwa, which forbids digging in the sand in certain regions of what used to be Persia. The reasons are fairly obvious. Islam is not the first faith to establish rules to prevent the discovery of alien life, spacecraft and the ancient pyramid network powered by Tesla coils. Christianity has done the same. If they had not, questions would have arisen that they are still not prepared to answer. More importantly, when a belief system only serves to control the people instead of providing them with the means to control themselves, then its purpose is flawed. Worship becomes a tool to subdue the masses, which uses marriage to keep couples from seeking to verify what they believe and realising the truth about themselves. [Heaven like Nirvana is a state of mind we cannot reach through lip-service or unenlightened devotion.]

After all, marriage is a contract, but it has seen worse days. It continues to prohibit prestipulated behaviour, such as adultery in monogamous relationships. The difference is, when both partners give consent, the Church does not care, unless it is against the law. [You want an open marriage? Have it. You want multiple wives? Move somewhere bigamy is legal. You wanna tie with knot a two-year old? Germany will turn a blind eye.] In other words, religious institutions are only as powerful as the state allows them to be, with one exception, Sharia. Conversely, the state is only as powerful as the people make it by giving away their power. This includes regimes, in which the State and Church function as one.
Honesty aside, relationships are not what they used to be. After the millennium, a study revealed we no longer have life-long partners, we have different partners for different stages of our lives. In total, 3-5 was said to be the new average number of long-term partners, but it can vary. A smaller percentage settled for 5-9. Ten years later, this has changed. The innate narcissism of the younger generations, myself included, is sadly doomed to shorten the average duration of relationships even further. Millennials are accustomed to certain level of comfort, technology and attention that cannot be maintained. Our expectations cannot conform to real life, unless reality cuts them to size. For what it is worth, most of us imagine relationships to be something they are not. Once we have fallen out of love, but remain committed to the relationship, many ask themselves “Is this it?” Women, who planned their wedding since they could walk, romanticised their ‘perfect day’ to such a degree that reality can never measure up. Their perception of marriage is a Disney fairytale that has a 1 in 2 billion chance of coming true. On average, our dreams do not come true, when they involve a rich, tall, good-looking and kind husband, a castle or other material goods that the universe could not care less about. Unless we devote our life to worthwhile dreams that do not just benefit us [for instance, love, truth, justice etc.] our efforts can never yield anything truly transformative.
Although love is not synonymous with marriage, that which it represents is the most important aspect of self-realisation through Union with another. In Hinduism, it is a very special form of bhakti-yoga…and as the term suggests [Bhakti: Devotion, Yoga: Union in Sanskrit]. We should all be so lucky as to practice such devotion in our marriage on a daily basis and have such devotion returned to us. Through its methods, the growing-used to each other becomes synonymous with discovering each other anew each day. Osho added a great many tantric techniques to spice things up. These suggest self-realisation can be attained as a couple, which leads us to the very purpose of marriage:

At first, marriage may seem to be just another economical arrangement far away from the spontaneity, intensity and beauty of love. When treated as such, marriage is degrading to both the woman and the man. It forces us to give without end, but reciprocates little. However, when it appears as though we need marriage to meet our basic requirements, we may feel as if our life depends on marriage. Imagine to be in a state of such deprivation, low self-esteem or uselessness as an individual or society that relationships use their inherent value and thereby their function. They are not a failure, since no matter how independent we become, we cannot survive alone…But, our approach to them has. It is very much the same with marriage. To solve the problem of high divorce rates, we must initially tackle our deeper relationships problems. To do so, we must start with ourselves. We cannot attain any level of lasting happiness, as long as it is based on external factors, such as economic stability, youthful appearance and so on. In other words, the problem is us. We are the reason our relationships do not last [romantic or otherwise]. It is our overwhelming desires to be exact. Although men and women are no longer inferior to one another, both are never satisfied. Equality is not enough for many. In truth, they seek superiority, dressed up as equality. If they only knew the game was rigged from the start…If they only knew slavish acquiescence goes both ways…
On a personal note, some say that marriage is an archaic institution incompatible with idealistic notions of freedom, but I humbly disagree. Women may seem sentimental when holding onto the idea of life-long companionship, true equality or unconditional love. Still, I ask you, what is life without them? If those ideals are impossible or improbable, then our inherent interconnectedness has no meaning. Our survival has no meaning. To believe there can be no such thing is self-destructive. Yet, to disregard the programming that our children are exposed to would be criminal. For decades, girls have been prepared for ceremonial rituals that basically mutilate their genital. Around the world, they are lied to when they are told the ceremony is conducted on the day when they will officially become a woman. Like the lamb led to slaughter, they are psyched in preparation for the event and screaming in pain once they realise what is happening to them. Unlike circumcision, this is not done for some religious reason, it is done to please future husbands. Afterward, no woman can be the same or look at a man the same way. Once the surface wound has healed, they are in physical and mental distress for years. Yet, they are often sold, married, raped and impregnated before they could even begin the healing progress. My point is the average man would be as abhorred as the average woman if they came into direct contact with these ongoing problems in our society. He or she may not seem to blame, but we all are. Our inactivity condemns other to dire suffering. The average man or women would never forget what they witnessed, but would do nothing to prevent further bloodshed. It would be no more than a frightening anecdote to scare their children into being more cautious. That is how far the practical nature of our society has come. Our comforts mean more to us than the quality of life of another soul, and to make matters worse, we feel so guilty over the fact that we would open our countries to billions. Where insanity is concerned, I thought I had seen or heard it all, then that happened. The worst thing is, it continues…We are returning to a time, when it was unsafe for women to walk the streets alone. Feminists readily dismiss the issue, even while their own are murder in cold blood. While German politicians are losing their daughters through targeted attacks with sexual overtones, their allegiance remains with highest bidder.

In any case, the psychological predilection to physically, emotionally or sexually mistreat another living being is a personal one. No matter how much we may wish to program it into someone, we cannot. It either comes naturally to them or it does not. Now, there is a large difference between inflicting injury and receiving ‘the goods’. Men can quite easily be led to believe ´that is how it is meant to be’ for whatever reason. From foot-binding to FGM, tradition takes over. After these painful acts have been performed for too long, it becomes habit to condition future offsprings to marry women that conform to these ‘oddities’. When two cultures meet so rapidly in such a large quantity as they have the last few years, this non-conformity can readily lead to violent aggression. Beneath their obvious religious motivations is something much more perilous: Desire. Although they seem to be more openly afflicted, we are far more vulnerable than we think. Political representatives [i.e: the state] as well as the Church approve of mass migration not because their heart fried out at the sight of misery. In order to exist, they must maintain a level of control over the people, men as well as women, and sometimes that means culling the herd for profit. Their desire for money, status or survival outweighed the ideals they represent. As stated previously, desire is not love. It is transitory, whereas love is constant. It never wavers. Desire has neither the capacity to protect us nor the nature to bestow peace, while love is its own protection ever at peace.

As to the protection of the woman, coming events will reminds us of the true value behind relationships, communities and marriage. Not that they really protect them, but they have the potential to and, on occasion, they actually have. At their core lies a great acknowledgement of our interconnectedness…a deep love of multiversal being…In recognition of that, we are closer to God, Shiva, the Great Spirit, but mainly each other, in absence of the Church and the State. By default, we would also be more protected.

Relationships are changing at the face of mass migration, as is marriage. We may think the institution of marriage is a debasement of love, but we have to remember how marriage was institutionalised. Its institution was the preemptive solution to an actual problem. Tribes controlled inbreeding through their elders knowing who they were intimate with. This knowledge could only be passed down from generation to generation because the tribe was of a smaller size. In medieval England and Europe, Christianity needed to maintain hold of larger population in its empire and at the same time limit inbreeding amongst their followers. Now, whereas Christianity [as an institution] has displayed paedophilic tendencies, whereas Islam has become well-known for its ‘incestuous’ tendencies in academic journals. As stated in a previous post, when Lawrence of Arabia interfered with the Middle East, they reverted back to the verse of the sword. In other words, the wartime protocols for their state and mosque. At times, when there is a shortage of unrelated women, which happens approx. every 1000 years in the Middle East, the bloodline line could be ‘preserved’ through inbreeding. In any case, it is not an advisable practice as it can do irreversible chromosomal damage. This is why certain disabled children only legally class as human but not medically. They do not have as many chromosomes, but this is not a popular fact in genetics circles as it opens the door to euthanasia for those suffering extensively from the damage [unable to speak, use the bathroom or live by themselves] in order to save them from a tormented existence. This leads us to a darker aspect of marriage. Segregated communities in England [Pakistani and other] are knowingly arranging marriages designed to produce disabled children in order to receive higher welfare payments from the state. Sadly, this old war tactic has taken a much more damaging turn. What was once a medically inadvisable emergency solution has become a means to con a perceived enemy. The high number birth defects weighs on the healthcare system, thus also interfering with their health. As immigration increases, these birth defects will become more frequent. However, the occurrence of kidnappings and forced marriages should also be very alarming. The ability to kidnap and restrain for long period of times implies there is a level of privacy. These communities are often on Royal Mail and police black-lists [i.e. one may need more than a riot squad], so it would not be far fetched to conclude that the increase in missing persons is directly related to the increase in kidnappings and forced marriages following rape. These areas are rarely frequented by the authorities. More importantly, few speak English. Even if they did, those that may talk are too afraid.

The institution of marriage has always served as a means to control men and women through religion, but we could grind Christianity and State down to a level of morality, in which it can permissibly become non-existent through its own doing, whereas Sharia is another matter entirely. Sharia embodies the State and the Church, yielding the authority of both. While it was permitted in Britain around the 1900’s for husbands to strike their wives with a stick no more than inches in diameter, this law was in conflict with women’s rights shortly after and was never really practiced. Apart from this one law, physical violence against women was never permitted by law in the UK as well as Europe. To this day, Sharia has no limit on the violence committed against women. It is a perversion of the faith, as it fails those it has sworn to protect under a religious oath. These shortcomings are the reason why the Church and the State remain separate. Each time, they merged, it ended through a violent revolution carried out by the people. Catholic men may have been made mistakes, but violence against women was never a wide-spread cultural penchant of the regions. Again, this is generally for self-serving reasons. Industrialising peadophilia behind closed doors is one thing, industrialising it en mass is quite another. It restricts their victim pool, reduces its overall quality and in less than one generation produces pre-damaged stock that might not be to their liking.
As Sharia attempts to influence the age of consent and very interpretation of the term, we must remember how far we have come. Sharia is not a sustainable system in its current form. If it does not adapt, it will self-destruct and inflict immense damage on its surroundings. Throughout the crusades, our female casualties were kept at a minimum since the penalty was a variety of torturous executions. As that is not the case this time, the casualties will continue to mount without adequate jail sentences…and even if there were, prisons are some of the most fortified structures in Britain, they are ideal ground for an offensive takeover of the surrounding area.

The reluctance of the Catholic Church to involve itself in a conflict against Sharia, as it threatens their existence, will undoubtedly lead to violent takeovers in areas near No-Go zones. In any scenario, the people will be disinclined to turn to the Church or the State for assistance. Marriage is hard when times are good, but marriage during war is naturally harder. PTSD has severe symptoms [such as nightmares, violent outbursts, aggressive behaviour etc.] The divorce rate is typically higher during large wars, mainly because couples do not have the time to build a solid foundation for their relationship as well as due to the effect of combat at a young age. Conversely, within an actual war-zone, residents need to be intelligent about building and maintaining relationships at a time of high casualty rates. One could meet someone at dawn, only to mourn them at noon. The emotional repercussions this has on children is rather profound. An entire generation of British children born in anticipation of a Cold War are evidence of that. To elaborate, as soon as children were old enough to understand in the early 80’s, it was explained to them what happens when the siren goes off. They were calmly told, the sirens were a part of a three minute warning system, which would alert them of a nuclear attack on the country. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy parodied ‘putting a bag over the head’ as a reference to this time. Most think it is bad joke of what not to do when the bombs are about to fall. To others, it is the equivalent of sticking ones head into the sand, but there is actually some truth to it. The British could not help their people at the time, except to alert them of an impending attack. In fact, there would be nothing anybody could do in those three minutes, no matter where the attack occurs. As I stated in the addendum to my doctoral dissertation, three minutes to prepare for death is a luxury. Even when death is expected, three minutes of conscious awareness to mentally prepare for dying is rare in cases of sudden death. Now, British troops had assisted in the cleanup of a nuclear strike in Asia, and their men returned deeply traumatised by the experience. Most had recurrent nightmares, involving the contorted faces of the dead. In case of attack, this can be very demoralising and affect the outcome of battle, as a retaliatory response. Long story short, residents were told to put a bag over their heads, so when their bodies are recovered, the distorted faces will not be too traumatic for those remaining, whose duty it was to bury the dead. The gap generation, which grew up in this time, were taught in schools that were fortified bombshelters. In Thanet, civil servants operated from council buildings that were prototypes for bunkers built to withstand a direct missile strike. For about five years, an entire generation lived under constant ‘fear’ of a Cold War. Once the tension cooled and the sirens were removed, the gap generation had turned out to be the largest generation of British born citizens in constant conflict with the its middle classes. Statistically, the effect of growing up during such times fosters a more anarchistic and/or detached mindset with the innate need to question authority, which often makes them very unlucky in love. Those qualities are not necessarily endearing to men or women, who do not share the same mindset, especially when prospective partners also are not of the same political persuasion…

The Trump & Brexit Effect

Our political ideologies are a direct reflection of our core values, and thereby our personal priorities. When we do not share the same core values as our partner, then our differences can lead to more arguments as a result. Although our core values must only be similar for two people to be more compatible with one another, even those minor differences can lead to conflict. There is nothing wrong with ‘loving’ someone but being unable to share our life with them due to fundamental differences in the way we see the world. But, there is also nothing wrong with trying our hardest to reconcile those differences in order to find a lasting peace in the relationship. We must only realise that sometimes we give up too soon and other times we try too hard when we know it will never work.
Trump, Brexit the EU may trigger arguments, but they simply point to a much deeper crack in the foundation of the relationship. We are all afraid of something, may it be the abolishment of women’s rights or the return of black slavery. Our core values [incl. what we consequently prioritise when making important life-choices] are designed to protect us and others from that fear becoming a reality. Usually our partners would soothe our worries, but what when our fears hinge on some nightmare of theirs? Some associate Brexit or Trump with the implosion of society, while their partner views it as an important step toward a brighter future. Since it is assumed that only one can be right with their thinking, an argument ensues that lasts to the bitter end of the relationship.
Conflict is an occasional part of relationships at every point in history, knowing why we fight is more revealing than how the fight came about. The topics rarely change [finances, chores, personal interests, ideologies or quirks], but how we resolve them has come a long way. We no longer have to view marriage as an inevitable downward spiral in the form of a lifelong commitment without escape. We can choose our partners freely as long as we protect our democratic freedom to do so. We can overcome our political differences when we realise we share the same core values underneath all the posturing, blaming, misconception and concern about the future. Each couple is unique, therefore each couple has to find their own way of resolving its problems with or without pre-existing methods.

That notwithstanding, major socio-political change has a way of getting us to prioritise in a manner we are not usually accustomed to. When we lose someone due to Brexit or Trump, whose contributions are invaluable, it is a tragic loss to the nation that should not be undermined. However, it pales in comparison to the death toll caused by mass migration. Love can overcome all obstacles, even death. Democracies cannot. As much as we may care about our ability to think, speak and move freely, there will always be those ready to debate what basic human rights includes or excludes. In the event of war, these reoccurring debates are typically suspended [while countless lose their lives] and continues after the violence has ceased. We may disagree with our friends, relatives or spouses, but we still love them. For the most part, we go to those we have known the longest or care for the most [i.e. child, partner, parent, sibling, childhood friend etc.] in the event of trouble. Others are not so lucky. Our democratic lifestyle has allowed us to receive education, choose our partners at a later age of our own volition and live freely by making predetermined choices. Regardless of how sensitive or radical our partner may be, we should be grateful that we met them. In Jungian terms, when two extremes meet, they may seek balance in order to attain a state of wholeness. Although we may not like to admit it, we can learn much from each other. Remainers could reflect on how their migration strategy has certain massive flaws in order to improve on it, for example, by rebuilding the Middle East instead of homing almost its entire population. Meanwhile, Brexiteers may wish to ponder how to revitalise the industry, avert crop failures by arson as well as extreme weather, combat No-Go Zones, FGM or child marriages. The main objective is for couples to realise that relationships end as a result of all these perceived problems in society, yet we do nothing to solve them. Essentially, when it comes to politics, we break up over opinions rather than actions. If we voted for Brexit, we would most likely still vote to leave. If we voted for Trump, we are still likely to support him. A vote just surveys how many people feel the same for the government to act accordingly. Voting generally does not change how we feel, but it can affect how others think of us. If we think of Trump as this misogynistic tyrant that grabs a feel with his morning coffee, eats babies for lunch and hosts orgies for the underaged at night, then of course, who would not be distressed? If we think of Trump as the return of American industry, less immigration, regular employment and higher wages, then who would not support him? In any eventuality, nobody is as bad or as good as we think. Trump is simply a man with the potential to implement positive or negative change, just like Brexit is just an event with the very same potential. The rest remains to be seen.

Our ideologies reflect a few from a larger number of core values, ranging from autonomy to wealth. In-between we will have demands such as honesty, dependability, commitment and self-respect. Although there are too many to list them, our core values are what should be expected from any sentient being with manners and common sense. These can come into conflict with each other just as much as failing to uphold them can be the root of our relationship problems. Though it is possible to embody every possible core value simultaneously, it is beyond madness to maintain permanently. To be a fair and decent person, who makes an honest living can be enough, but it does not have to be…

Our relationships are a doorway to something greater. Dare I say, our interconnectedness is the most important lesson that life may teach us. Only when we approach each other as equals and without judgement may we understand what love truly is. Relationships can wither or fade, but our inherent unity remains. It transcends common experience, even the realm of the desire, it is the epitome of peace. For us [as people], this notion of peace is very difficult to understand, let alone live up to. To live in peace without understanding the meaning of the word is impossible. I am not referring to the definition of the term, but the mental state. Why is it so difficult for us to be calm, peaceful and desireless? We make no effort to be any other way. We are been lulled into complacency by the belief that evolution happens naturally, when consciousness development requires rigorous effort for decent results. We must look beyond right or wrong and attempt to see things from a wider perspective, not merely our own and ask ourselves “What is the root of all conflict?”.
In sum, the root of conflict is time. For this, we must know time is the manner in which our consciousness perceives our relative existence, as a sequence of moments. It does not yet realise its source. Time, as a byproduct of consciousness, is primarily psychological. Time is a movement [a rotation of planets] and as such does not truly exist. From prior to the Big Bang to the lateral end of time, the total sum of energy in the multiverse never changes. Energy is not destroyed, just transformed, therefore whatever we believe our problems are…they are infetixmal on the grand scale of the cosmos. To the point, we are one. In that oneness, time is an illusion…and if psychological time does not exist, then there is no conflict. There is no `me’, no `I’, which is the origin of conflict. However, life is never so simple…

The modern relationship has evolved, or so we think, but we have not grown closer to each other, we are simply more dependent on feedback. In truth, we seek a higher level of verification, personal approval and social satisfaction. We may only be a text away from each other, yet the homeless have mobile phones without money for food or anyone to call. We wish to think that we care so deeply about our own, but actions speak louder than words. Our care for each other is often selective, if not driven by the goal to appear unprejudiced. We may have become more accessible, but we have grown further apart. We are often too busy with our own lives to truly connect with our families or the community. As the quality of our relationships degrade, we are unable to resolve problems that are larger than one or two people. Our dream of an improved world might never come to be, because we did not try. It is never too late to call an old mate, rekindle a neglected relationship or engage with the community. After all, we all have until the entropic collapse of the universe to truly connect with each other. But, that does not mean we should wait, letting worthwhile opportunities just pass us by. Every moment matters and we should make good use of it…

The debasement of relationships is merely an intended byproduct of engineering human consciousness out of a myriad of others. As with all others, their success depends ignorance. Such methods can only be successful when the individual does not know themselves as well as their opponents do, in turn, making them that much easier to manipulate, defeat or crush. Although we may not like to admit it, but we need each other to secure our continued existence and to realise the purpose of life in the multiverse. Our relationships are key to understanding a higher union than blood-ties, camaraderie or marriage. A union, which cannot be certified, sanctioned or audited, but remains the overshadowing reason for our pragmatic reluctance. In the eyes of the politically correct beholder, selfless love is impractical, unfeasible and often close to the nonsensical. We are lulled into a state of such intense chronic dissatisfaction that we cannot allow ourselves to grasp the very meaning behind the concept. As a majority, we would rather support the latest, popular fad instead of resolving politically disenfranchised problems that have been ongoing for over a decade. In other words, our affections are selective, which its unconditional counterpart is not. Love does not play favourites. It has no interest in personal gain. It does not value one life over another, nor does it overdramatise certain problems just to distract from others. It has no ulterior motives, as it only exists in the absence of judgement. It, therefore, is not an act of persuasion, but a state of being, in which we treat everyone equally, not identically. It has no need for constructive criticism, when compassion will do. It does not shift blame, knowing responsibility is mutual. Its powerful effects cannot be described through any language, nor can they be empirically quantified. We do not know why we feel the way that we do. Often when our affection is reciprocated, we do not care to…Once again, by being selective, we are depriving ourselves something very precious. That which overcomes all obstacles. Love.
On the other hand, love is just a byproduct of the foundation for relationships as a whole. Love is not the result of our proximity or biological relation to one another, but our interconnectedness. In conditional form, love serves the purpose of prolonging or improving our current state. It becomes an early casualty in a violent struggle between the ego and the collective unconscious. Conversely, in its natural [unconditional] state, it brings us closer to realising the inherent unity that exists between all things in the cosmos. Love, therefore, is not a choice, concept or ideology. It cannot be debased, only our expression of it can. Just as we cannot be separated from each other in consciousness, the perceived distance between us is merely a temporary setback. Our differences are illusory in nature and eventually we will realise that love is devoid of the conditional qualities that we associate with it…

Gene Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action

Global Freedom Movement

en: Peace dove icon. es: Icono de la paloma de...

FORMAL STATEMENTS

  1. Public speeches
  2. Letters of opposition or support
  3. Declarations by organizations and institutions
  4. Signed public declarations
  5. Declarations of indictment and intention
  6. Group or mass petitions

COMMUNICATIONS WITH A WIDER AUDIENCE

  1. Slogans, caricatures, and symbols
  2. Banners, posters, and displayed communications
  3. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
  4. Newspapers and journals
  5. Records, radio, and television
  6. Skywriting and earthwriting

GROUP REPRESENTATIONS

  1. Deputations
  2. Mock awards
  3. Group lobbying
  4. Picketing
  5. Mock elections

SYMBOLIC PUBLIC ACTS

  1. Displays of flags and symbolic colours
  2. Wearing of symbols
  3. Prayer and worship
  4. Delivering symbolic objects
  5. Protest disrobings
  6. Destruction of own property
  7. Symbolic lights
  8. Displays of portraits
  9. Paint as protest
  10. New signs and names
  11. Symbolic sounds
  12. Symbolic reclamations
  13. Rude gestures

PRESSURES ON INDIVIDUALS

  1. “Haunting” officials
  2. Taunting officials
  3. Fraternization
  4. Vigils

DRAMA AND MUSIC

  1. Humourous skits and pranks
  2. Performances of plays and music
  3. Singing

PROCESSIONS

  1. Marches
  2. Parades
  3. Religious processions
  4. Pilgrimages
  5. Motorcades

HONOURING THE DEAD

  1. Political mourning
  2. Mock funerals
  3. Demonstrative funerals
  4. Homage at burial places

PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

  1. Assemblies of protest or support
  2. Protest meetings
  3. Camouflaged meetings of protest
  4. Teach-ins

WITHDRAWAL AND RENUNCIATION

  1. Walk-outs
  2. Silence

View original post 589 more words

What is Thought-Crime?

⚠️ Warning:

This content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised

George Orwell introduced the concept of the “Thought Police” in his dystopian novel 1984. Those who have taken the time to read any of his material may presume that his ideas of thought-policing via complete, external surveillance is far far-fetched. However, thought policing is not just possible, there are many ways of achieving it. Each would invariably lead to a different type of revolution as a direct consequence.
Now, when we attempt to surveil thoughts, most would resort to methods that are already available to us. Social media, for example, or service providers such as Google. No new gadgets must be invented. The elite does not need to provide their newly found henchmen to with pre-patented technology that is not currently available to the public. If this served some higher purpose, the public would reluctantly learn to adapt to a new status quo [that includes total surveillance of every inch of their lives]. Who would disagree with a digital cavity search under the guise of justice, unless they have something to hide? As we are adults here, we have the maturity to admit that there is personal information we would prefer not share, even if it means lying to keep the information from getting out. Few are willing to share anything, which is why authorities tend to get the extra large anal probe at the sight of hesitation. [For what it is worth, this may seem more intrusive, but it is better than ‘good, old-fashioned police brutality‘. Though suspected offenders still suffer extreme beatings, there were also incidences when an offender was thrown into a cell with an HIV-positive inmate for them be deliberately infected through rape. This treatment was typically reserved for heinous crimes, like pedophilia.]

Contrary to popular belief, the human race could easily become used to total surveillance. In fact, many would welcome the idea, if it were implemented correctly. On the surface, it would be a simple exchange of liberty for a greater sense of security, like any other. However, one cannot sacrifice ones freedom without giving away ones power. We might be glad to be rid of the responsibility, but we have this a persistent penchant for accumulating power to exert it over others…

Do We Live In An Era of Constant Surveillance?

When Scotland Yard instated a special unit, designed to tackle hate-crime, they were jokingly named the thought police. By now, there is a growing body of evidence that their job is no laughing matter. They, along with each law enforcement officer, is ordered to get with the program, face unemployment or suffer incarceration for speaking against the globalist’ agenda. Another utopian ideal has become a dystopian reality, turning the police into unquestioning servants prepared to engage in violence by the way of service once more before they will face their biggest transformation in recorded history. While their enforcement of blasphemy laws [disguised as hate speech] is a blatant waste, it is also an abuse of authority. Their ability to safeguard the mainstream public is compromised by the sad truth that they have to prioritise laws, which stroke bruised egos rather than save lives.
We may not believe mass migration is changing our societies for the worse, but when we cannot voice our doubts, then we are not as free as we are led to believe. Most already treat constant surveillance as a part of modern life. We benefit from CCTV on our streets, as it can aid in the capture as well as prosecution of petty offenders. We save time when companies [such as Apple, Google etc.] monitor our usage of their services in order to target us with ads tailored to our every need or want. Deep down, it makes us feel a little safer to know someone is always watching…But, deep down in our heart of hearts, we know [on an instinctive level] that those people do not always serve our best interest. We know, yet we do nothing, because there is still a chance that they might…

Each time, technology takes a step forward, backwards or sideways, we move with it. We are changed by it, especially when we have never known anything else. The millennial and following generations are evidence of this. When we have forgotten what it is like to live without TV, computers or mobile phones, we have become dependent on them. In fact, a recent study showed that we check our phones every 12 minutes on average. With each check, we post, google or respond to something. In turn, most of what we do, write or say via our mobiles is recorded by the various service providers. Beyond that, the microphone and camera remains active, even when it is not used. However, anything gathered [when it is not used] is generally inadmissible in court with minor exceptions.

What we do on a daily basis is how we spend our lives. How many of our activities are monitored is debatable, but it mainly varies according to which country we reside in. For example, Britain had more CCTV can any other country. Although it is a known fact that the number of cameras in No-Go Zones has been substantially reduced, the effects of this on surrounding areas are kept even quieter. The cycle usually is as follows: CCTV is vandalised while other crimes are committed, the police investigates, the CCTV is repaired within a set time-period. Now, when CCTV is repeatedly damaged up to or beyond the point of repair, the situation now ends one of three ways: [1] those responsible hide in wait to attack the repair-crew, then attack the police and expand the No-Zone to that point. [2] law enforcement anticipates an attack but does not have enough manpower to keep the area from becoming a No-Go Zone. [3] the police arrives in full force, a small gorilla war ensues until the attackers withdraw as to not lose the entire No-Go Zone and will try again next week. This is a pattern that can be found in every No-Go Zone across Europe. In their case, CCTV surveillance serves little purpose, except to build a trap in order to re-establish control. Apart from alternative news sources, very little is reported on the subject as a result of wide-spread censorship.

As parts of the U.K. and Europe are becoming no-go areas with a slow, but consistent expansion rate, law enforcement may only operate outside these areas. These ‘communities’ have their own justice system, in which crimes are not reported to the authorities. Residents tend to report offences to trusted members, who will then act in response. When these cases are uncovered, they are very hard to prove due to the lack of CCTV footage and/or other physical evidence. The residents in these neighbourhoods rarely speak to the authorities after they have been the victim of a crime, they say even less when they are not directly involved.

In truth, we are under some form of surveillance most of the time, even inside our homes. This is not new information, nor is it a reason to lose our heads. It just means that our paranoia is not groundless. Hence, we should be aware of what can happen when the justice system takes an undemocratic turn by targeting those who hold unorthodox views that do not physically harm anyone. Many still argue that hate [in itself] is not a crime and should not be treated as such, while acting on feelings of intense dislike/prejudice should be. But, the moment we began to prosecute those who acted by voicing their true feelings [or pulling stupid pranks without inflicting bodily injuries], we endangered their lives. As more are arrested for hate-crimes, the system attempts to draw attention away from the fact that almost all of them died in radicalised prisons. If Tommy Robinson had not been such a public figure, he would have suffered the same fate. Instead, they placed him in solitary confinement and probably poisoned his food. Interestingly, those lucky few, who survive their prison term, often emerge with chronic and/or terminal diseases for which they have no explanation other than that they were deliberately infected.

The purpose of the law is the preservation of life. When we imprison those speaking out of term for the same amount of time as we would sex offenders, then it is evidently a crime to hate. However, there is a difference between what the accused have actually done and what they are accused of. For instance, when the leaders of Britain First were convicted of ‘religiously aggravated harassment’, they merely acted on their right not to believe, to blaspheme and to question the Islam. This is not an isolated case. Here’s another example: When Tommy Robinson was incarcerated without trial for ‘contempt of court’ after filming suspects involved in a criminal trial and broadcasting the footage. During his own trial, he was informed by the ruling judge that the freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
– Human Rights Act 1998

So far, freedom of speech is not directly against the law. Conversely, the expression of hatred toward someone on account of that person’s colour, race, disability, nationality [incl. citizenship], ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden by law. In other words, it is illegal to discriminate based on the characteristics listed above. The current interpretation of hate speech, which legally favours one set of religious beliefs over another, is a perversion of justice. As long as any statement is just hurtful, it does not warrant an arrest or even the persecution of those involved. Once we begin to incite violence [for example, by calling for the gassing of Muslims], then there are going to be consequences. After all, it is against the law to incite religious hatred and/or inflict physical injuries.

In Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, religious hatred means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. This act describes the acts intended to stir up racial hate, ranging from threatening behaviour [incl. speech, written material etc.] to the power to enter and search the premises of a person, suspected to be in possession of written material or recordings. Please read more here.

Is There Legitimate Concern We Could Be Wrongfully Arrested?

Well, yes always, but within reason. People are arrested for crimes they did not commit every day. They are also prosecuted for illegal acts, which should have been decriminalised decades ago [such as growing hemp or cannabis for personal use]. Meanwhile, sex offenders of non-European origin are rarely incarcerated, except when the the legal system cannot ignore the evidence provided.
Contrary to popular opinion, the law is a fluid construct. We think of its history as blood-soaked, when it represents the exact opposite. We use the Geneva Convention as a means to control the likely damage inflicted during war and prevent unnecessary suffering, but the conflict continues for economic as well as ideological reasons. We have not yet attempted to remodel the Geneva Convention to outlaw armed conflict on similar grounds. Firstly, it is futile at our current state of development. Secondly, there is simply too much profit to be made and power to be gained through war. It drives technological advancement, inflates prices and decides the politics of tomorrow. However, the same can be said about the continued effort to revoke civil gun rights. Despite the irony that anti-firearm lobbyists ensure their bodyguards carry multiple weapons, their job is to undermine our ability to protect ourselves and each other. If those rights are removed, firearms do not simply disappear. Their price on the black market soars, leaving a power vacuum on the open market for new non-lethal weaponry like patented stun guns. In other words, when we ban transportable goods, they just become harder to access without the right contacts. Statistically, they become more accessible to ex-offenders with the increased risk of using them for criminal purposes, but less accessible to the average person who would use them for self-defence. When we censor specific content online, it simply moves to a more heavily encrypted region of the dark web. The risk of exposure is limited by restricting access to the banned content. When we censor specific content in the media [incl. newspapers], we typically prohibit the expression of corresponding views at the same time. Without omni-present surveillance, this kind of censorship is much harder to uphold offline. There are no laws in Europe that restrict the freedom of speech, when there is no intent to commit an illegal acts. Put differently, there are no laws against ‘hate speech’ yet. The worst that social media platforms can do is deny that person access to their site for a period of time. However, the interpretation of certain laws are changing…

Antisemitic acts are still illegal when they are so defined by the law [for example, denial of the Holocaust], despite Labours dubious new definition of the term. Although no criminal charges have been filed against Corbyn and the like, they continue to commit hate crimes in the public eye. There have been multiple instances of attacks [incl. threats] against the Jewish people by Islamic extremists, but little action has been taken. Needless to mention, the new definition further undermines this rampant form of antisemitism. Yet, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are not the only faiths affected by this new brand of illiberal ‘liberalism’. Spiritual practices that do not receive the same legal protection as official religions, such as Shamanism, have also been subject to prejudice…
By legitimising Sharia Law, we are legitimising more than hate crimes. We are legitimising child marriage, pedophilia, rape as well as domestic violence. Sharia [in its current form] basically spells the end for the rights of women and the LGBT community. These laws do not exist to protect Allah or the Arabic people as a whole. They exist to protect the fragile egos of the Imams and ensure that they maintain control over their followers without offering them the option to leave the Islamic faith [via apostasy laws].

In any eventuality, there is a crack in the foundation of our global community, we are more reachable than ever before in recorded history, but we have never been further apart from each other as a race. As stated in my book, our ancestors have fought bled and died for the liberties that we enjoy today. We may fail to understand how important those traditional values were to them, but nature is a cold, hard place involved in a constant struggle for survival. Those outdated values worked for thousands of years, we must ask ourselves is it truly wise to abandon them now? In the end, all we have is each other. By being easily offended and refusing to acknowledge the fears of another person, we are destroying each other along with ourselves. All freedom comes at the cost of eternal vigilance, no matter the era. We could spend over a thousand years fighting for the ultimate system to monitor, intervene and prosecute offenders around the globe. We could even perfect preventive measures, eradicating crime altogether. However, any system can crumble in less than a day…
We must not rely on a system to protect us. We do not live in a ‘systematic’ universe. [Mathematically, the multiverse is more of a non-system, due to its underlying nature. A holomovement. There but not there.] We cannot understand how to live with each other, if we do not understand the nature of existence. If there could be a system to satisfy all, then we are probably living it right now. When everybody wins, everyone loses. There is no governing system that does not benefit one over the other. Those governed lack the skills, education and experience of those they govern, vice versa. Equally, there can be no ultimate surveillance, especially when it restricts our freedom even further. We, as individuals, are a part of a larger whole. We are connected to each other and this planet. Everything is connected, regardless how much we attempt to deny the scientific evidence. Somewhere in the future, our hurt, anger, hatred and/or hypersensitivity will have come and gone. It lasts for a blink of an eye. This may be hard to imagine in the here and now, but the Truth is limitless. It cannot be captured, contained or suppressed. It is perhaps of the freest there is. Although we may feel intense emotions about what is happening across Europe, to act on these feelings on a whim can have a stiff price. Be kind, but assertive. Debates do not need to devolve into Hitler comparisons from liberals or genocide on Arabs from conservatives. In the words of James Allen, “It is the silent and conquering thought forces which bring all things into manifestation.” Although we must not delude ourselves, the likelihood of civil unrest across Britain and the continent is incredibly high. Unfortunately, prison is an incentive for us to be more mindful with what we think, say or type. It is also a reason for us to be more diplomatic or more constructive. Why yell, threaten or swear when a calm statement of the facts is all that is required? It comes with no custodial sentence. More so, it embodies the very purpose of free expression [liberation from ignorance]. We are ignorant of them and they are ignorant of us. Our problem is a dual- edged sword. We may only resolve them by exercising our rights within the parameters of the law. We may only take non-violent action, but we still have rights…and if we do not use them, we may lose them, because we were intimidated, too anti-social or scared to say what we truly think. Our thoughts become who we are. They are a force in themselves that helps us analyse, interpret and shape the world around us. In truth, they are free, but truth comes at the cost of self-restraint. Like our words, we should choose our thoughts wisely. We should only think or say as much as is necessary. The absolute truth is, if anything, patient but concise. Whatever we may believe, it will always reveal itself…

Why ‘They’ Want You To Be Either Liberal Or Racist?

⚠️ Warning:

This content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.

The term race dates back to 16th century Middle French, translating as ‘people of common descent’. It is often assumed that there is no correlation between the Latin word ‘radix’ which means ‘root’. In 1868, the word racism did not exist as such. The behaviour associated with the term [including other less hostile behavioural traits] were known as tribalism. It did not simply denote that we belong to a certain tribe, it also described our socio-cultural heritage. Religion generally had nothing to do with it and still doesn’t.
Now, the excessively conservative ways we conduct ourselves used to be a means to protect solitary regions from exploitation, invasion and worse. When a lonesome tribe in the middle of nowhere encountered a stranger or a group of strangers, it signalled potential danger. However, as there are exceptions to every rule, for some tribes, it would signal lunch. There are countless islands, from which travellers would never return. A few even continue this tradition nowadays.
Although we often overlook the first slaves were Caucasians seized during an invasion of Slavic territory, committed as a part of an Islamic conquest that mainly involved pagans, every culture has the potential to enslave another given a certain set of circumstances. This happens to be more important to remember than ever before. Regardless of what ethnicity we are at this point in time, we are responsible for how we treat others. Firstly, when we accuse others of racism, we better have proof…not an interpretation of how we perceive or believe their ancestors acted but actual evidence. Information drawn from personal testimony can be manipulated, particularly if it was collected decades ago and/or translated from another language. Moreover, when information is taken out of context, it can be used to mean anything we want it to, regardless of whether it was intended to be interpreted in this manner. Secondly, it is possible to walk the fine line between racist bigotry and left-wing insanity. I’m not saying, it is a popular choice, but it is a diplomatic solution that defeats the global agenda. To be honest, speaking the unadulterated truth has never been harmless at any point in history. It is always inconvenient, since it is rarely embraced on a unilateral basis.

To the point, when a culture riles up toward an ideological and/or socio-cultural war, there is no way to avoid calling it an incursion. Each time, we encourage one culture to act on their darker impulses while we prohibit another from defending itself against them, it is an invasion of our freedom as a global community. There is no outcome other than revolution. More importantly, this is the basis to fuel any race war…by letting animosity build on both sides by governing them with different rules. Law figures into it only through subjugation to this scheme. When racist tendencies are rewarded as long as they are exhibited by certain ethnicities and punished as long as they are exhibited by others, then there is no moral way of coping with the situation that will not draw attention to the problem. Although such schemes typically happen in stages, recent events have shown what is happening to our world is far from gradual or is it? Initially, European and surrounding cultures overlooked certain less drastic traditions, such as blood-letting and ritual animal sacrifice in the streets. If it had ended there, most turn a blind eye to cutting a childs forehead. However, it did not even stop at child marriage. The cycle of them against us continued with added ammunition, even after they can legally get away with almost anything. They say ‘We do not allow them to experience their full religious freedom according to their laws.’ We respond by saying ‘They do not tolerate our customs, boundaries or laws.’ Contrary to popular belief, the majority of Westerners do not care about peaceful worship. If they wish to dance naked around a campfire every night to celebrate their deity, they are more than welcome to do so for millennia, but not by forcing others to join, not in public and not in a way that involves acts of violence. As soon as we begin to accept the suffering of others as a ‘normal’ part of religious worship, we are bound to suffer as a consequence. When we ignore the tiny voice inside ourselves that begs us to take responsibility for allowing these events to occur, to take action or at least care a little bit, then who will help us if we end up in the same situation?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me…
– Niemöller

It is not the first time we are pressured into taking a self-destructive path through fear tactics and it will not be the last. As always in these circumstances, we are damned if we speak up and damned if we remain silent, whether we are black, white, green or purple. That is the way the game is rigged. However, the outcome can change if we are willing to make it happen. For as long as we identify more with the colour of our skin than what is in our hearts, we are doing exactly what we are expected to. We no longer pay attention to what is happening behind the scenes, instead we are too busy focusing on our superficial differences. This just serves the purpose of making us ignore that we have a common goal as a people: Freedom.
If we want more tolerance in the world, we have to be more tolerant instead of being offended by mere words, because is our responsibility to convey the importance of free expression. If we wish for peace, then we have to work hard for it, because it is our duty to rid the world from hatred and reunite as a people. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
In truth, we do not need to be liberal to accept opinions that differ from our own and we do not need to be racist to discriminate against what is different…This political powder keg is far from black and white. Life is never so simple that we can brand anyone as anything for any length of time. Our views, circumstance as well as behaviour can change in the blink of an eye, but what remains is the moral imperative to realise that we are being distracted from more important things, such as a man-made mass extinction orchestrated by our own under the guise of ‘progress’. The coming war might not be avoidable, but we can be certain that a reduction of the global populace through selective slaughter has begun. Yet, by the time many will recognise what is actually happening beyond any doubt, it may be too late to change where we are headed. Again, that is the way the game is rigged.
We are led to believe that we are responsible for the actions of our ancestors, while those who suffered at their hands are persuaded into thinking any ancestors karma can easily be transferred onto future generations. Although we are not our ancestors and neither are they, we are both encouraged to punish one another for the mistakes of our past. Despite being immensely dangerous, this manner of thinking can only cause more pain, but this is incidental…it mainly serves to distract from the truth. For Africans, it preys on their fear of re-enslavement, reminding them of how deeply their ancestors suffered, yet it also heightens their emotional state…for as long as they are too caught up in what they are feeling, they have no desire to study the hidden history of their nation, specifically who owns the mines and what is buried underneath the sand. For Europeans, it corners us under a false flag operation, namely the European Union. Even after the EU is long gone, we will still be repairing the damage. Liberal Germans, Austrians as well as Swiss are expected to embrace the death of their country as a punishment for Nazi collaboration, leaving the Jews and genuine refugees out in the cold yet again. Meanwhile, their right-wing or conservative counterparts are forced into submission, surrender, silence or incarceration. For the English, there will never be a fair deal with the EU, it is not in its nature to act out of anything other than self-interest…It is the way it was designed. That is its original purpose…to subjugate nation after nation, like bulldozing a field not yet ready for battle. After every borough has been seized by those, who have no interest in upholding British law, the no-go zones will simply expand to include them. It will be swift without any more forewarnings that we’ve already received.

When divided, any nation is weakened. There’s no need for unions, written contracts or agreements, as long as the people realise that what we write on a piece of paper doesn’t embody our connection to one another. If we could honour our word, then they’d have become obsolete long ago but that’s what the legal system served to protect since before the birth of Christ. However, the moment that the legal system is influenced by any kind of prejudice, its rulings are biased and thereby become disproportionate. For instance, a Caucasian, British offender would serve more time than a African/Middle-Eastern offender for the same crime or the other way around. Besides going against the very spirit of justice, it further fuels the race divide [outside of public control] within that country.
Continuing with the previous example, when we witness a child being abused by or even marrying a middle-aged man, we should have no other reaction than disgust. It does not matter whether it is a cultural tradition or religious custom, it spells unbearable pain for the child. It is of no consequence whether one court or all the courts deem this union ‘legal’, it is an act of sexual violence waiting to happen and the natives in the region should be the childs first line of defence against any kind of exploitation. The same applies to laws that permit any kind of abuse, spousal or otherwise…It is up to the people to either make a broken system work or tear it down to rebuild. Conclusively, when any nation values the wellbeing of certain residents over others, it is merely a matter of time until those neglected will display retaliatory tendencies.
When the government is more likely to help ethnic minorities instead of its own veterans, families with children or the sick, an expansion of the minority populace is imminent. In Britain and Germany, the majority has been reduced to such a point that specific minorities have grown out proportion. What once was a tool to prevent the extinction of minorities to achieve a state of balanced diversity now swings the other way. It now spells the gradual extinction of native ethnicities, while minorities have no intention to protect them when they officially become a minority in 2020 or sooner. Does that seem appropriate, considering the situation?
Since Europeans are almost never entitled the same level of care as any minority, this has massive repercussions on millions of impoverished people across the continent in the present moment. Our fertility rate is lowered with every passing year, while many parents starve to feed their children. Although it may sound incredibly harsh, but minorities are provided with flats, warm water, heating and healthcare more often than natives. I’m not saying one should receive preferential treatment over the other or that ‘foreigners’ should be deported by the truckload. I’m merely stating that both should be treated equally regardless of race. Both should either be helped or ignored in equal measures. Being black or middle eastern should not be a criteria that boosts our ability to qualify for anything, but it does in Europe, America and especially Britain. Despite the undeniable fact that there will always be someone better off than us, race should not be a deciding factor in the accumulation or more importantly the equidistribution of wealth. At this level of favouritism, people will continue to resent one another. Few will understand that once we are done fighting each other…once we have reduced our numbers to the brink of extinction, we are much easier to control. When 90% of the population has been disposed of, depopulation will have led the way to a new world order, in which the same elite minority governs the remaining populace and the game is over until it needs to be restarted again. Conspiracy theorist rarely cover the sad truth that this has happened before and it will happen again unless prevented. The hidden demise of Sumeria and the fall of Babylonia are mere examples of how long such a game can last. More importantly, it highlights how much we need to learn about past events in order to survive present day events. Although that is so often the case, the brewing race war intends to erase much of what has been and is being uncovered. As long as we are programmed to label alternative views, as illiberal, inappropriate or intolerant, because we are scared of their implications, then we are preventing others from expanding their consciousness at great cost. Our fears become an obstacle in their development, but also our own. Questions do not simply fade away by telling people that they cannot ask them. Opinions are not deleted from the mind when they cannot be expressed openly. In fact, both grow and fester into something nobody can control any longer. If suppressed long enough, they develop a life of their own that surpasses our lifespan by planting themselves deep in the unconscious. For what it is worth, we can die asking the same questions life after life. Eventually the answer will lose all meaning, because it is the journey that matters. Our persistence to know the truth, even at the cost of several incarnations, is what matters more than the truth itself. Relative truths change concordant to our environment, but the search remains. Searching does not just ‘build character’, it enables us to realise that the absolute truth can only be found within ourselves. It bridges the gap by teaching liberals to be less sensitive to what frightens them, while teaching xenophobes that nobody is inferior due to their genetic heritage. Regardless of how immoral an individual or group may behave, we are not superior to them. In truth, we are all equal to one another, no matter the crimes committed. It is not up to us to judge them, or we’ll eventually be judged in return. It is not our right to be offended by any crime, because we do not know what we would do in their place given a similar set of circumstances or else we may wind up in just such a situation. We also cannot morally justify persecuting others as a consequence of having been racially or ideologically persecuted in the past. Nevertheless, it should be noted that any living being has the right to defend itself when attacked verbally or physically, but this does not justify striking wildly at anything that does not conform to its views. In the end, we are all entitled to them without consideration for how right/wrong they might be or where they may lead. In view of the bigger picture, every person needs to realise their personal misconceptions in their own time. When convinced by force, the effects of persuasion are merely temporary. Most will think, say, do or believe anything, if it spares them pain, gives them what they want or saves their life, except when their conviction outweighs anything that can be done to them. With the firm belief in paradise, heaven or nirvana, delayed gratification can override our immediate needs, even if it comes at the highest cost. In these instances, the present moment is transcended in the dire hope for a better tomorrow, which not only defeats the purpose of the here and now but such a mindset is spiritually toxic. When we act with the expectation of a reward, action loses its inherent meaning. For example, when we complain about menial things in anticipation for others to change in order to make our lives more bearable, we are not just expecting a positive outcome…We are basically asking others to change so that we do not have to. The problem with this behavioural pattern is the ever-changing nature of the multiverse. We cannot stand still for long (though many of us try repeatedly without success), as the next event about to invoke more changes is already in the works. For what it is worth, when we are not dissatisfied with how we are treated, we are pained by low income, lack of security, relationship trouble, disease and/or old age. The lack of personal fulfilment begins at the time of birth and ends at the point of death, just to continue in a sub-domain or space-time. IT DOES NOT CEASE BY ITSELF. Hence, if we wish to be truly content, we must want for nothing. How is that possible, you may ask? Cut the strings and just be. Aim for the final achievement of all thought, their cessation through rigorous contemplation. # Paradoxical, is it not?
Our common goal as a people, freedom, can only be achieved by freeing ourselves. Yet, as soon as we can neither be viewed as liberal or xenophobic, we transcend the boundaries of politics. We no longer identify people according to the political implications, and consequently no longer treat them as people but potential threats or targets. To identify as being either liberal or racially protective comes with a certain mindset that is outward-going and partially combative by nature. Both seek to shape the world in the image of a certain kind. We treat people, things or the world in the way that we wish for them to be in order to inspire actual change that impinges on personal freedom. We no longer strive to reconcile our conflicts through mutually beneficial compromises that allows for diversity, we merely aim to eradicate our differences by applying variant degrees of force. When this reaches the governmental and legal levels of our global community, it is recipe for calamity. In any case, in which the government, legal systems and socio-cultural imperatives of two opposing nations collide, they either merge on a system-wide basis or engage in a violent struggle until control over the majority is gained. Historically, the level of force applied in such cases often reaches violent extremes. Supporting either side in the hope of victory is the equivalence of voting conservative since UKIP had no chance of winning after Nigel Farages departure. For example, as with Theresa Mays election. The end may justify the means, but it never ends well when we compromise on the quality of life, which includes the quality of leadership over the lives of an entire nation. It may postpone the inevitable for a period of time, allowing us additional time to physically, mentally and emotionally prepare for a series of events, but it does the same for the opposing side. It means liberals receive extra time to invite more refugees into the country, but won’t take any into their homes due to security concerns. It also means more people are prosecuted on trumped up charges for speaking up about White, Black, Asian and Indian genocide at the hands of religious extremism. Meanwhile, genuine refugees and peaceful followers are threatened, blackmailed and even assaulted to coerce them to a point of conformity by the majority of religious extremists.

In every recent conflict, the minority that profits is above the conflicting sides. The individuals financing propaganda, weapon supplies as well as the slave trade. War generates capital for an elite minority that they rarely use to support the people as a whole, especially when it typically is invested to fund greater control over the common populace. When such a war is waged to commit ethnic genocide to gain a greater level of control over the people, as it has been on smaller scales in the past, then the side that is underfunded has a higher chance of losing. However, the likelihood of success does not guarantee it. At present, liberal self-hatred is paving the way to not only white genocide, but global genocide of anything that does not openly surrender to religious extremism because they blame themselves for the wrongs committed by their long-lost ancestors. Although their willingness to condone or even support violent retaliation has its boundaries, every liberal would have to reach form of personal limit that radically changes their political views in order to be more conservative. Until then, they will continue to cross swords with their so-called political counterparts. They will resort to extreme measures more frequently, while condemning retaliatory attacks.
When both sides are attacked for their political stance, it is in their nature to persist regardless of the outcome. However, there are very specific limitations to our persistence that reveal much about our psyche. Whereas personal limits that make us less liberal are generally reached when we experience profound trauma first-hand (directly inflicted on us by those whose lives we are attempting to improve), the opposite is true for racism without ulterior motive. There would actually have to be a decline in religious extremism, media blackouts as well as gag orders. Positive change would not simply have to be proclaimed by mainstream media outlets, it would have to visible in our everyday interactions, in the manner our corporate overlords operate and obviously by being able to move freely through no-go zones. For any average racist to become less suspicious of their fellow man, there has to be more equality, freedom of speech and peaceful debate rather than the pretence that we have all those things…
On a final note, the debate about the reasons why we are encouraged to be either cannot cease at this point, it can only devolve into liberal-‘isms’ or race-‘isms’ (often followed by name-calling, shifting blame and even prosecution for the sake of keeping in line with the mainstream narrative). There is far too much profit to be made by dividing us as a whole whilst cultivating a seemingly unbreakable state of dependency. We may perceive ourselves as an independent or united people, yet we are neither. We can never be truly united, until we learn to live in independently in a self-sustainable manner as individuals, countries and living beings. Conversely, we can never be actually independent for as long as we are in a state of system-wide dependency. Nevertheless, it is only when we have the choice between solitude and togetherness without need, preference or desire that we realise our inherent unity…when we no longer identify ourselves by our political stance, creed or race, but for who we truly are beyond this moment in time. To be neither is by far the most dangerous tool in our arsenal, as it paves the way toward a level of anarchism this planet has not seen since its formation…

Please Click Here To Read More

Depopulation: Crafting A Subservient Race Through Mass Migration

⚠️ Warning:

This content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.

During insane times, sanity looks very much like insanity. After all, what would you do to stay alive? Ultimately, we must all ask ourselves that question. The shorter the life-expectancy inside a culture, the younger it is necessary for its people to decide on an answer. Regardless, our choices have a greater impact than our attitude. How much we are physically willing to sacrifice in order to live longer requires more than words. It is hard work on a moment by moment basis. Living has not been as hard as this since Victorian England. The obscenely rich coexist with the extremely poor within the same city district. As this worsens, the conditions will mirror those of the third world:

  • At present, mobile phones are more readily available than clean food, water, shelter or medicine.
  • A dangerous increase in crop failures across the European continent will inflate supermarket prices and result in higher levels of starvation. This does not include the crops that were salted by passing migrants with deliberate intent, thus rendering them useless.
  • The nutrient depletion in fresh grown fruit as well as vegetables continues to soar unimpeded.
  • Less than 3% of the global water supply is actually clean and at a steady decrease…

Meanwhile, political leaders (such Macron, Merkel, Corbyn, May etc.) pride themselves on encouraging mass migration as a form of cultural enrichment, but do not dare walk the streets without bodyguards. In secret, they are exploiting the self-destructive impulses of society. It is an unfortunate consequence of our modern lifestyle that we cannot spread our wealth around the world. Every country struggles with disease, poverty and homelessness. There is not enough to go around. Although there are more humane solutions than genocide, they are less profitable.

Truth be told, we cannot continue as we are now. Our lifestyle is ravaging the global ecosystem, causing extreme temperature fluctuations, natural disasters etc. We consume almost two Earths’ worth of resources in a single year. Statistically, this includes man-made resources. Without war, our survival will necessitate tough decision-making and even tougher acts of self-control. In the event of world war, the problem would be resolved in a convenient bout of genocidal violence. The ruling elite would just make do with whatever remains in the same dehumanising manner.

The problem is we do not know people as well as we imagine. People often agree on things in order to avoid conflict. They hide their own unpleasant qualities, (while excusing the destructive or even violent behaviour of others) as to not offend. Hence, we can never truly know what a person thinks.

There are two sides to the the current political leadership (for versus against mass migration). As lines are being drawn across Europe, alliances are forming. Both sides in various countries have their personal agendas. For example, Macron aims to take control over the EU, hence he is carefully undermining what Merkel is failing to do, but unwilling to do himself. Le Pen was restructuring her party for a rematch next year, when French judges blocked a 2M subsidy payment (due to an investigation into the possible misuse of funds. This coup d’etat could be the end of the National Front in France, but not the anti-immigration movements led by Le Pen. Although Geert Wilders lost the election, he still speaks up about the crimes committed due to religious extremism. He also attended the protest to free Tommy Robinson. The Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, is attempting to stem the flood with a broom by deporting close to 7000 migrants in six months. This is perhaps the highest number any European country has expelled. Kurz aimed to lower the number of daily arrivals by cutting benefits, but he knows his methods will only prevent a worse conflict when other countries start to implement them. To the point, as much as these feuds or allegiances appear to be solely professional, they are born out of a deep self-interest for survival. More accurately, survival in a world controlled by an elite with its own agenda.
As I stated about a year ago, mass migration draws attention to our pre-existing shortcomings. For instance, child abduction, FGM  and other forms of sexual violence were already daily occurrences. Now, they are viewed as a part of multicultural integration with a complimentary STD as the cherry on top…Instead of the prevalent problem harshly dismissed by silencing, fining and imprisoning whistleblowers that it truly is. These political alliances form around worsening problems either as a means to disguise or resolve them. Continuing with the previous example, Swedish authorities would rather cancel upcoming music festivals than address the root of the problem in their community. The increase in sexual harassment (incl. fatal STD cases) coincides with the surge of mass migration, which is supported by the suspect descriptions often given to the police. However, they are not pursued as vigorously as they could be, since their case load pales in comparison to their conviction rates. Their welfare system is on the verge of collapse and their healthcare system is struggling to cope. Meanwhile, other nations are experiencing similar difficulties. Many transferable diseases, which have not been seen since the Black Plague, are spreading as a result of mass migration. Some believe refugees are deliberate carriers (as in germ warfare), others prefer to think the spread is incidental. In any case, hospitals across Europe are attempting to keep the increase quiet to avoid panic. Not only does this prevent people from knowing how to take the necessary precautions, it also leads them to believe the public health is stabler than it is and vote accordingly.

Caucasians will be a minority in less than 20 years, whereas the birth rate for other ethnicities continues to climb.

As a tool of depopulation, mass migration has successfully led to billions of deaths for various reasons. The Native Americans were given infected blankets by the Spanish, French and Dutch to seize their land. The Native Sicilians were massacred to take their land and forcing the surviving women to breed. (Dark hair and blue eyes was a very rare genetic combination before then.) During the Crusades, land changed hands frequently. Entire towns were taken one week and retaken the next, whereas others perpetually changed sides. At one point, Spain was even under Sharia rule, which they are now returning to…

Our population was never this large, mainly because we engaged in conflicts that cost many lives. In the absence of mass death, the population grows exponentially when the fertility rate does not decline equally across the ethnic scale, so to speak. In such cases, depopulation is not necessary, but it is easier than the alternatives.

‘We’ are not overpopulated as such. (The birth rate for Caucasians is actually in a steady decline. Redheads included.) We simply do not act in ways to maintain an ecological equilibrium, which includes reducing the number of children born in future generations. The declining birth rate across Europe, Britain, Asia and the United States reflects the decline in fertility. For numerous countries, reproduction is not merely a financial concern, but a very personal health crisis. Although this does not seem to apply to certain countries as of yet, it affects any ethnicity exposed to a sufficient amount of toxins in the food, water, soil and air supply for a prolonged time period although whites are more susceptible. These toxins include fluoride, heavy metals, phthalates and/or others that are a large part of modern nutrition. As it takes a few generations for the toxins to inflict enough DNA damage for their effects to be transferred on a hereditary level, it may not seem like an acute problem but it is. Any offspring is invariably affected, once the parental DNA has suffered extensive damage.

For what it is worth, the damage is not irreversible, as much as science may claim otherwise. Various forms of technology already exist. For instance, mesenchymal stem cell differentiation to cultivate the desired cellular matrix (i.e. whereas we used to grow hyaline cartilage, skin grafts and other parts for transplantation, we can know program cells to grow entire limbs that matches a particular genetic code as to avoid rejection). Another example, targeted gene therapy using the desired genetic vectors (i.e. embedding the right vector would heighten regenerative properties within the body by either replacing lost genetic material or encouraging the activation of dormant material). So, as you see, we have options. The corporate community merely does not employ them for the sake of greater financial gain worth the current treatment options than if they did. Lifelong treatment provides a regular income, while fully restoring health is far less profitable.

Overcrowding, the most cited reason for depopulation, does not apply to certain ethnicities as much as we are told. The declining birthdate actually keeps the number from growing for Caucasians (in the United Kingdom, the United States, Europe etc.) Although numerous studies have been conducted to discern the underlying cause, the results remain inconclusive. Hence, the fertility rate is higher amongst Hispanics, Hawaiians, Blacks, Asians, Indians and Arabs without any other explanation than greater genetic adaptability to the before-mentioned environmental triggers. More importantly, upon analyses of such findings on a global scale, numerous thinktanks have arrived at the conclusion that Caucasians will become a minority in less than 20 years, while the birth rate for other ethnicities is expected to rise without incident.
Age or gender appears to have no bearing on the lowering fertility rate, as those with the genetic propensity are equally affected. In women, this resulted in a substantial rise of infertility cases (presenting with primary/secondary amenorrhea, PCOS, ovarian/uterine/endometrial cancer, problems with the hypothalamic-pituitary axis etc.) without effective treatment that does not involve progesterone, radiation or hormone therapy. In men, the number of infertility cases (involving prostate/testicular cancer, hypogonadism, injury-related incidences etc.) rose to equal extents without effective treatment. Regardless of gender, the majority of cases are labelled idiopathic. Due to the misconception that the birthrate is far too high, any investigation into the cause are swiftly dismissed as unnecessary and/or quashed for their politically incorrect results.
Before listing the various reasons behind this, it should be noted that the term ‘idiopathic’, derived from Greek, roughly translates as ‘a disease of its own kind’. From a medical stance, the term implied that illness is as much psychological as it is physical. However, it was also broad enough to be used for ‘the first disease of its kind’, which is exactly what it came to describe. Now, when medical professionals cannot figure out the underlying cause, it is much cheaper to label the problem ‘idiopathic’ than to order expensive tests that the patients cannot afford even with medical insurance, a well-paid job and middle-class lifestyle. In addition, as soon as any medical file contains the word ‘idiopathic’, it is often assumed that the root of the condition is purely psychological. Although the nocebo effect proves psychological factors can have a detrimental effect on health, it is rarely reported when these factors result in death. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that all these cases are of psychological origin. If they were, it would mean over a third of the global population are suffering from psychosomatic illnesses. The likelihood of this is incredibly low, unless the very nature of disease is psychological in origin, in which case it would explain the existence of the placebo/nocebo effect.
As detailed in my other work, mental factors can only influence matter to a limited extent. For example, when we remove a fish from water, we cannot expect it to adjust instantly. Similarly, if we were to relocate an Eskimo to the Sahara, it would take generations before they acclimatised to the extreme temperature difference. The same applies to taking a Venician from sea level to the top of the Himalayas without anticipating problems. To the point, we can say the underlying cause of their problems are unknown or we can admit that our preconceptions may be at fault. Simply because we do not know, does not mean we cannot. Historically, we believed many things, which we eventually disproved. Given enough time, nothing is unknowable. Continuing with the previous analogy, we discovered why certain types of lifeforms are better equipped for survival as well as reproduction in specific environments. For instance, saltwater fish struggle in freshwater due to how hypertonic cells function. When left for long enough, their sodium levels are depleted but not replaced, ultimately causing death. The same happens when we remove any organism from sea level and rapidly increase/decrease the altitude. As soon as dizziness, nausea and vomiting kicks in, the altitude has to be reduced. The same applies to reverse altitude sickness. As soon as symptoms present, the altitude has to be increased. If not, unconsciousness following death is imminent given either scenario. With sufficient training, we can adjust to lower/higher altitudes but only to finite degrees without advanced meditative practice or genetic engineering. Interestingly, it is more than possible for humanoid lifeforms to develop the necessary physiological factors to dive as deep as the Mariana Trench. However, such features take hundreds, if not thousands of years to cultivate without resorting to radical scientific methods. Countless generations would have to activate aspects of the human genome that have remained dormant for millennia, which would then have to be developed further by gene therapy, mind-body training and/or other alternatives.

Our development is largely based on that of our ancestors. How they modelled the environment to suit their needs is the primary source of our daily comforts. Just as their ancestors finding the ancient trade routes allowed for constant global trade, our ancestors devised the means for instantaneous communication around the globe and so on. In other words, we shape each other in this life and the next. Our childrens development is no exception. We continue where our ancestors could not by undoing their best work, rectifying their mistakes and at times by striving for the highest endeavour that any sentient being can. They shall do the same. It is an Never-ending cycle. That notwithstanding, when their wars become ours, as they so often do, we must know the history of the conflict and where future conflicts will take future generations. Far too many romanticise the concept of a modern day crusade without truly understanding the destructive nature of war from first-hand experience. We are caught up in whatever is happening at the time to realise the big picture…Even, if we were told, most would not believe it or investigate further. Truth is much darker, much stranger than we are compelled to think…

Our Perception Reflects Our State of Consciousness Prior To Colour, Creed or Race

When two fractions of the human race are played against each other, then the third is most likely pulling the strings. When manipulating the development of a species over generations, the ends typically justify the means. Anarchistic, free-thinking tendencies are eradicated gradually as to not arouse suspicion but they are weeded out more aggressively as time goes on. This can only be achieved by rewriting the dictionary…by redefining problems to maintain appearance, shift responsibility and compensate for shortcomings… Words, such as freedom, are twisted. Plainly speaking, when a concept no longer benefits the ruling elite, it is remodelled. Although this is an old practice, it is highly effective when people have been ‘sufficiently prepared’. Recently, the British Labour party’s governing National Executive Committee redefined antisemitism in such a manner that it has legitimised it. Its code now says: “In general terms, the expression of even contentious views in this area will not be treated as antisemitism unless accompanied by specific antisemitic content (such as the use of antisemitic tropes) or by other evidence of antisemitic intent.” Hence, unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent, unsubstantiated claims aimed toward the Jewish people are permissible.

It is not the first time that very important terms were redefined for the worse. Redefinition is a part of the ongoing development that comes with linguistic communication. Whereas words have the capacity to activate genes, they may also deactivate them. More accurately, it not actually the words that achieve this. It is the realisation that comes from understanding them. Put simply, a klick happens in the neural cortex, which literally makes the visual cortex perceive ‘something’ [incl. associated ‘things’] differently.
We typically redefine a concept, when we have gained vital information that will aid complete understanding. Otherwise, the reason for redefining anything is morally questionable. As any species progresses from pre- to post-linguistic, the interpretation of universal concepts (expressed through language) evolves alongside them. In ideal scenarios, they strive to realise the final achievement of thought with little to no contention amongst them. As this is rarely the case, the circumstances are often far from idyllic. For us, conflict is a means to reconcile our differences in a rather pre-determinable fashion. Before the conflict has even ended, the winner has already been decided by the type of conflict waged. Almost every possible scenario is considered and what is required for the events to unfold for each scenario to take place. The people themselves are thought to have very little control over their lives, because their actions can be easily anticipated, influenced and corrupted. Votes are being manipulated, until the public response becomes too excessive to control, as with the Brexit referendum and U.S. Election. Behaviour is controlled through positive and negative reinforcement, until the positive/negative stimulus no longer has an effect [i.e. when we completely lack any care about the negative consequences for attempting to inspire global change and need no reward in exchange]. Our food, air and water supplies are poisoned with toxic, addictive chemicals to damage our DNA, until those responsible no longer have the ability to benefit and the cost of doing so is too high. Thought control is implemented, when each attempt to influence free speech has failed. Before which, what we are allowed to express is penalised when it no does not conform to the pre-established political agenda. The political agenda implemented on a nationwide scale is generally decided by those who hold the power. The opposition of the elite acts to counter the waves of destruction, but can only do so to a limited degree. Mass migration has forced leaders to show where their allegiance lies. This has come at a great cost to the people. As events have spiralled out of control, more lives are lost each day and we are prohibited from admitting to the cause without persecution: Religious Extremism.

Across Britain and Europe, the freedom of expression carries high penalties, ranging from fines to prison sentences. First, inconvenient truths became unpopular opinions that incited rage often followed by violent outbursts, after which they became immoral and then they became illegal. Soon, as in any Sharia-controlled nation, they will be punishable by death. Among other things, they will be blasphemous, but not without vehement opposition.
Before we proceed, we must ask ourselves, what are the primary systems governing the people on a global scale: the Church, the State and the Bank. In order for the people to be controlled in an easier fashion without much disobedience, these systems must merge. [Mind you, they will inevitably need to merge in order to become obsolete.] The manner, in which they merge may not affect the outcome but it changes the hearts and minds of the people. When a war becomes so desperate that it shakes the core of almost every person on the face of the Earth, then the Church, State and Bank must work hand in hand for the survival of those remaining. In Sharia, all three are one. They do not exist as separate entities. To do so would violate their religious texts. [This is very similar to the Hebraic principle that forbids Jews from owning land.] In any case, where we compartmentalise the three, Sharia ensures they are treated as one. Although this has benefits in an idyllic, peace-loving world, in which we can leave our doors unlocked, we are not yet willing to make an all-integrated system work for and not against the people. In wartime, the benefits of such all-in-one system may potentially outweigh the consequences. For example, a possible repeat of WW1s lack of ammunition, weapons, worthwhile stratagem or morale. Only this time, a percentage would be due to left-wing/liberal interference to either cease the violence or aid a growing, Sharia-controlled minority about to seize legal superiority.

During times of extreme stress or life-threatening circumstances, it is not uncommon for people to turn to religion, especially when they feel that they state has forsaken them. It is a coping mechanism to ensure the minds functioning after a traumatic event. When one institution has failed, it feels natural to be driven to another, but the solution does not lie in institutions. That is why religion always might just fill the whole. Think about it, it can display all the qualities of a corporation, but not appear as one. Throughout war, religious impulses thrive and die with every passing day, because of our innate desire for meaning, love or peace. The question is which religion?

As the Italian Prime Minister provides more protection for Christians than the Vatican, the probability of a siege has decreased slightly. Yet, it is highly possible that the Vatican will fall from within. In Britain and Europe, pastors will continue to be targeted at an increasing rate. As this happens, religious representatives will lose the trust of the people as they persist in denying that we are caught in an ideological war. When this happens, most church-goers will not convert. They will simply change congregation, unless they have experienced severe trauma around the time of the event. As things worsen, churches will become active targets. There is nothing to be gained by endangering your followers [unless you’re gaining something for the other side], so worship will revert back to a more tight-knit, communal state.

As war-zones develop around the No-Go zones, food distribution will follow military or modified dads army protocols. Rationing will be implemented early on as food shortages are expected. Money will lose its value in areas, which cannot be cut off and secured. Others will transform the benefit system. Universal credit it a beta test. Rationing tickets will be handed out but no actual money will change hands. As WW2 survivors will verify, these tickets were only as good as the foods available to the local store. If the store did not have the allocated food, whatever the item was, people starved. Nowadays, the government would transfer money to the corporate vender for the food to be distributed. In turn, the corporate vender would pay the corporations for supplying the goods. Most food during war times is [1] processed, containing toxic additives and preservatives, which further reduce the fertility rate when least needed. [2] canned, exposing people to excess heavy metal and BPA for prolonged periods known to cause disease. [3] preserved to a marginally healthier degree with sugar, vinegar, brine, alcohol etc.
The probability to survive is typically by calculating the scale of the event. As few accessible locations will be available to the public, the only ability to survive long enough is community. In the absence of secret, large-scale preparation, the odds are not in anyones favour. Religious extremists continue to smuggle full arsenals, including rocket launchers, into Germany, France, Britain and other countries. Strategically, the average community stands a significantly greater chance, when they prepare together and take well-contemplated action as a unified force.

Many native gene lines have been forced into extinction as they could not ‘mingle’ with their own kind. Genetically, Egypt has not been Egypt in some time. Most Egyptians fled Egypt and intermarried. Few [if not none] share the blood-line, dating back to Ancient Egypt.
As time progresses, any country that only breeds with natives would eventually run out of people they are not related to. Interbreeding is required to avoid inbreeding. However, breeding with inbred DNA to outbreed is not recommended. When religious laws damage the genetic health of an already frail future generation by encouraging incest for the sake of financial gain, the non-compliant are weeded out fairly quickly. During wartime, this protocol takes a grim turn. The orders change to kill the mentally, physically infirm as a means to conserve resources. Without welfare payment from the enemy, their religious laws demand those unable to kneel, pray and serve be executed.

As much as certain ethnicities face extinction, there is no way that they can. Our genetic material is safely stored. This means every ethnicity, even older forms, can be replicated via technology as a fail-safe. It should be noted that I am not talking about the seed vault, which had to be evacuated, when its material fell under siege by religious extremists.

In conclusion, depopulation is not about which ethnicity has global superiority. It is about those, whose mental state is easily influenced. Some of whom are obvious cannon-fodder, but can still up their value. Others, whose value has been evaluated for generations, and those in-between. These in-betweeners are maybe 2-5% of the population. The number is designed to be decreased by war. Truth be told, that is the expected number of survivors, just below 100 million, to establish to total control. However, there is a level of leeway, dependent on the reproductive health of the survivors and other factors to be discussed soon.

Related:

Krishnamurti on Vegetarianism and Killing

Question: Do you advocate vegetarianism? Would you object to the inclusion of an egg in your diet?

Jiddu Krishnamurti: Is that really a very great problem, whether we should have an egg or not? Perhaps most of you are concerned with non-killing. That is really the crux of the matter, is it not? Perhaps most of you eat meat or fish. You avoid killing by going to a butcher, or you put the blame on the killer, the butcher – that is only dodging the problem. If you like to eat eggs, you may get infertile eggs to avoid killing. But this is a very superficial question – the problem is much deeper. You don’t want to kill animals for your stomach, but you do not mind supporting governments that are organized to kill. All sovereign governments are based on violence; they must have armies, navies, and air forces. You don’t mind supporting them, but you object to the terrible calamity of eating an egg! (Laughter) See how ridiculous the whole thing is; investigate the mentality of the gentleman who is nationalistic, who does not mind the exploitation and the ruthless destruction of people, to whom wholesale massacre is nothing – but who has scruples as to what goes into his mouth. So, there is much more involved in this problem – not only the whole question of killing, but the right employment of the mind. The mind may be used narrowly, or it is capable of extraordinary activity; and most of us are satisfied with superficial activity, with security, sexual satisfaction, amusement, religious belief – with that we are satisfied and discard entirely the deeper response and wider significance of life. Even the religious leaders have become petty in their response to life. After all, the problem is not only killing animals but human beings, which is more important.

You may refrain from using animals and degrading them, you may be compassionate about killing them, but what is important in this question is the whole problem of exploitation and killing – not only the slaughter of human beings in wartime, but the way you exploit people, the way you treat your servants and look down on them as inferiors. Probably you are not paying attention to this because it is near home. You would rather discuss God, reincarnation – but nothing requiring immediate action and responsibility. So, if you are really concerned with not killing, you should not be a nationalist, you should not call yourself Sinhalese, German, or Russian. Also you must have right employment, make right use of machinery. It is very important in modern society to have right employment because today every action leads to war, the whole thing is geared for war; but at least we can find out the wrong professions and avoid them intelligently. Obviously, the army, the navy, are wrong professions; so is the profession of law which encourages litigation; and the police, especially the secret police. So, right employment must be found and exercised by each one, and only then can there be the cessation of killing, which will bring about peace among men. But the economic pressure is so great in the modern world that very few can withstand it. Almost no one is concerned with seeking right profession, and if you are concerned not to kill, then you have to do far more than merely avoid the killing of animals, which means you have to go into this whole problem of right employment. Though the question may appear very petty, if you go into it a little more carefully, you will see that it is a very great question because what you are, you make the world to be. If you are greedy, angry, dominating, possessive, you will inevitably create a social structure that will bring about further conflict, misery, further destruction. But unfortunately, most of us are not concerned with any of these things. Most of us are concerned with immediate pleasures, with everyday living; and if we can get them, we are satisfied. We do not want to look into the deeper and wider problems; though we know they exist, we want to avoid them. By avoiding these problems, they are increased, you have not solved them. To solve them, they cannot be approached through any particular ideology, either of the left or of the right. Look at these problems more closely and effectively, and you will begin to understand the total process of yourself in relation to others, which is society.

But you will tell me that I have not answered the question about the egg, whether to eat an egg or not. Surely, intelligence is the important thing – not what goes into your mouth, but what comes out of it; and most of us have filled our hearts with the things of the mind, and our minds are very small, shallow. Our problem is to find out how to bring about a transformation in that which is shallow and small, and this transformation can come about only through understanding the shallow. Those of you who want to go into the question more deeply will have to find out whether you are contributing to war and how to avoid it, whether indirectly you are the cause of destruction. If you can really solve that question, then you can easily settle the superficial matter of whether you should be a vegetarian or not. Tackle the problem at a much deeper level, and you will find the answer.

Source: Jiddu Krishnamurti, Talk in Colombo 1949/50

Die zunehmende Verblödung des Menschen

~ANDERSmensch~

Wer sich bereits in einem Zustand wachen Bewusstseins befindet, dem wird in den letzten zehn Jahren folgendes Phänomen nicht verborgen geblieben sein: Der Großteil der Menschheit verblödet zunehmend.

– Woran liegt das?

Zum Einen liegt es wohl an dem irreführenden Glauben an Bildung. Menschen mit Schulbildung halten sich für intelligent, obwohl meistens das Gegenteil der Fall ist. Bildung zerstört einen wesentlichen Teil der ursprünglichen, natürlichen Intelligenz und Beobachtungsgabe des Menschen. Der Großteil dessen, was ein Kind in der Schule lernen muss, basiert auf Annahmen, Mutmaßungen, Pseudofakten und Lügen. Man sagt diesem Kind zum Beispiel, die Erde sei rund, die Geschichte der Evolution sei so oder so verlaufen, der Erdkern bestünde aus flüssigem Eisen, auf der Venus herrschten diese oder jene Bedingungen, man müsse besser, schneller, stärker, härter und schlauer sein als andere, um zu überleben, und das Kind muss all das glauben, weil es keine Möglichkeit hat, diese Aussagen zu…

View original post 870 more words