The Personality Types of Political Persuasion

Seduction in any form is a psychological process that transcends gender, except in a few key areas where each gender has its own weakness. The male is traditionally more susceptible to appearances, where his carnal interests are concerned, but the primary sense that he interprets reality with plays large role in his closer relationships. Hence, women who can concoct the right physical appearance appeal to large numbers of men, but don’t succeed as much in the political area as in the business world. Conversely, the weakness of the female gender itself is language. The right words must be spoken at the right moment in order to give the desired impression to her audience. Though, the majority will not be drawn to a male speaker, who is the same height or shorter.

Personality Types of Leaders

No matter, where in the world we find ourselves, we are always confronted by the same various categories of leaders. While we have Stalin, Hilter and Mussolini on one side, we have Churchill, Sissi and Lincon on the other. Our state, religious and banking systems have become the central pillars of control, which govern our society at almost every step…and who would not be drawn to holding such power, am I right?

Unfortunately, the fittest to lead often do not wish to, as those drawn to power will do anything to climb the social ladder. When this power thrust upon suitable people, such as Sissi of Bayern, they use it for the betterment of the country as well as its allegiances. In case of Sissi, her marriage to King Franz was an unhappy coincidence for the Queen Mother, which nearly led to the breakdown of Austro-Hungarian relations, further rebellion or even war. Despite her repeated attempts to sow discord between the two nations, Sissi made every possible effort to rectify them. Her desire to free the Hungarian people with the support of the leader of the rebels, Julian Andrej, was not a popular choice for the old monarchs. Yet, her charm was so intense, Austria was not the only country to embrace her ascension with great joy. The Hungarian people fell in love with her during her struggle against its oppressors and anointed her empress. Her unwillingness to bow down to social etiquette may have endeared her to the average person around the world, but caused problems in her marriage…especially after the Queen Mother removed her first-born from her care with the permission of the King, which was the standard protocol for royals, she fought for the right to raise her own child and won.

The Rakish Leader

An ideal leader combines riotous living with intellectual pursuits, designed to change society for the better. They place the will of the people before their personal desires, regardless of the sacrifice. However, this personality type of the aristocratic rake also has its counterpart. Whereas one uses his power to sway a captive audience in the attempt to improve their lives, the other uses it for his own ends. Both possess the ability to let themselves go in order to enchant people in their own way. Both aim to draw their target(s) into the kind of moment in which past and future lose meaning. To do so, they must both be able to abandon themselves in the moment to become one with those they wish to persuade.

Their success lies in the unconscious content that they bring to the surface. They appeal to the fantasy of the individual in a large crowd with cunning. They plan what specific fantasies, they wish to appeal to. They calculate what they would have to persuade people in a particular direction. However, they take great caution to mask their underlying motivations. Merely the scent of unsavory intentions makes an audience grow defensive, thereby lowering their chance of success.

The more ardent leaders solve this dilemma in the most artful
manners. They must think harder to find a way around whatever the obstacle is. It is exhausting work. However, by nature, such a leader has the advantage of an uncontrollable passion. When they pursues a goal, their strong emotions persuade as much as inspire. As a result, people support them, even despite themselves. When they play on emotions, they are so convincing that they will face any obstacle for the mere sake of pesuasion. After all, their followers would not expect to feel secure in desperate times. Even when the public is aware of their immoral past, there is nothing more attractive than a reformed sinner. It lulls them into a false sense of security, in which they believe to know their weaknesses. It makes them more relatable…and as such they inspire no fear. In the absence of doing so, their intense desire for a specific kind of change has a distracting power.

When they play on intellect, their efforts are often more sophisticated. They use attention less as a weapon to captivate but to enlighten. They inspire a level of confidence that leaves no room for doubt. They show no hesitation and abandon all restraint.

The Dandy Leader

Most of us feel trapped within the limited roles that the world expects us to play. We are instantly attracted to those who are not…Those who move through the world more fluidly, more ambiguously than we do. In other words, we admire who create their own persona. They excite us because they cannot be labelled. Their air of freedom is one we want for ourselves. They play with masculinity and femininity in an androgynous fashion.

This type has a strong personality with a tendency to unbury the hidden wants of their audience…and what is most seductive is often what is most repressed. They approach such forbidden content in the minds of their followers gradually with a level of playfulness. They act as a magnet for people’s dark, unrealized yearnings.

Since the 1920s, women were beginning to play with a newly found freedom. Instead of waiting for change, they wanted to be able to initiate it. For wives, this time also marked a change in the way they view gender roles as well as the family unit. However, their rise to political power often came at the cost of motherhood. The average woman enjoyed more control in initiating intimate encounters, but they still wanted the man to end up sweeping them off their feet.

Many of us today imagine that freedom has progressed in recent years. Everything has changed for the better. This is mostly an illusion. A reading of history reveals periods of freedom almost in glorious excess of what we are currently experiencing. Gender roles are certainly changing, but they have changed before. Society is in a state of constant flux, but there is something that hasnt changed. The vast majority of people conform to whatever is normal for the age. They play the role allotted to them. Conformity is a constant force because humans are social creatures who are always imitating one another.

At certain points in history it may be fashionable to be different and rebellious, but if a lot of people are adopting this role, there is nothing different or rebellious about it. Such widespred anarchy would either create a dystopian or utopian society.
Leaders rarely complain about most people’s slavish conformity, however, for it offers untold possibilities of power and seduction to those who are up for a few risks.

Since most of us are secretly oppressed by our lack of freedom, we are drawn to those who are more fluid and flaunt their difference. As alphas, groups tend to form around them and wildly imitate their style. In ideal cases, they are different in ways, which are both striking and aesthetic, never vulgar. They poke fun at current trends, while carving their own path. Not to mention, they are supremely uninterested in what anyone else is doing. Most people are so insecure, they wonder what these outsiders are up to. Potential followers slowly come to admire or imitate them, simply because they express themselves with total confidence. More importantly, they are subtle in all their attempts to persuade. They never try too hard for attention, but wait until it comes to them. Moreover, what distinguishes them from the norm is equally as subtle, expressed in little touches to highlight their disdain for convention.

The Naturally Persuasive Leader

Naturals are people who somehow avoided getting certain childish traits drummed out of them by adult experience. These people can be as powerfully persuasive as any child, as it seems uncanny at first glance that they have preserved such marvelous qualities. The spirit, they have retained, while so many others have not. However, this youthfulness is not something beyond their control. They learn the value of retaining a particular qualities to get what they want early on…and the seductive power it contains. Over years, they build upon those traits, they managed to preserve. To do this successfully, they have to learn to be witty to a degree without self-consciouss, since there is nothing less natural than seeming hesitant.

As people are we much more forgiving of those who go all the way, though they seem uncontrollably foolish, than the halfhearted adult with a childish streak. In a position of leadership, a touch of innocence can help lower defenses. For example, like when a con man plays dumb to make the other person trust him and feel superior. This kind of feigned naturalness has countless applications in daily life, where nothing is more dangerous than looking smarter than the next person. Conversely, in politics, the perfect way to disguise ones cleverness means the opponent is perhaps a better choice, unless the trap has already been set for the opposition to reveal their ignorance. In the case of Jess Phillip latest stand in British parliament, for instance, she demonstrated if you are uncontrollably childish and cannot turn it off, you run the risk of seeming pathetic, earning not sympathy but pity or disgust from your listeners.

On a related note, these natural traits evolve with age. Childlike qualities work best in one who is still young enough for them to seem natural. They are much harder for an older person to pull off. The Duke of Buckingham, who seduced everyone in the English court in the 1620s (including the homosexual King James I himself), was wondrously childish. His behaviour, however, became obnoxious and off-putting as he grew older. Worse, he eventually made enough enemies that he ended up being murdered. As people age, their natural qualities should suggest more the child’s open spirit, less an innocence that will no longer convince anyone.

The Coquette Leader

The ability to delay satisfaction is the ultimate art of seduction. This tactic can also be applied in the annals of political persuasion, but with less public appreciation than the others.

Coquettes are the grand masters of the back-and-forth movement between hope and frustration. They bait with the promise of reward [the hope of positive change], which will prove elusive. Yet, this only makes their followers pursue them the more to make the desired change happen or point out their flakishness. Their in-built narcissism may prove devilishly attractive in the dating world, but it loses its charm when they assume a leadership role. Their strategy is never to offer what their followers desire the most, yet always make it appear as though they might. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, like they say.

They tend to play with volatile emotions. Every time the pendulum swings, love shifts to hate, so they must orchestrate everything carefully. Their absences cannot be too long, their bouts of anger must be quickly followed by smiles. They keep their victims emotionally entrapped for a long time. Although the longer this goes on, the more tiresome this dynamic begins to prove tiresome.

The Charmer

These consummate manipulators mask their cleverness by creating an atmosphere of trust. Their method is too simple. They just deflect attention from themselves and focus it on their target. They understand their spirit, feel their pain, adapt to their moods. They make others feel better about themselves. As a rule, they do not argue, fight, complain or pester, unless pushed beyond the point. The more they listen to concerns and feign empathy, they foster a state of dependency while their power grows. To be precise, they aim at peoples primary weaknesses, their vanity and self-esteem. Their way to attain power is to fulfill the expectations of their audience, such as the focused attention, the boosted self-esteem, the needed support, the understanding (real or illusory), but subtract any meaningful change.

However, in some lurks the capacity for true leadership beneath the surface. They may give people something that holds their attention or fascinates them. A decent leader will capture people’s attention without lowering their powers of reason, but heighten them. A manipulative leader will strike at the things their audience has the least control over, like ego, vanity and self-esteem. The strategy can never be obvious. Subtlety is once again the Charmers greatest asset. If the target is to be kept from seeing through the their efforts or growing suspicious, maybe even tiring of excessive attention. The Charmer is like a beam of light that doesn’t play directly on a target but throws a pleasantly diffused glow over it. They fade into the background, as listen and observe. They let others do the talking and thereby revealing themselves in the process. As they find out more, especially their strengths or more importantly their weaknesses, they tailor their attention to specific wants, needs and insecurities. By adapting to them, they empathise with their woes, validating their sense of self-worth.

On a mass level, they make gestures of self-sacrifice (no matter how fake) to show the public that they share their pain and are working in their interest. They listen to complaints, but primarily distract from the problems instead of solving them.
In politics, they provide illusion and myth rather than reality. Instead of asking people to sacrifice for the greater good, they talk of grand moral issues. An appeal that makes people feel good will translate into following, votes and power.

In essence, they superficially turn antagonism into harmony. They know how to smooth out conflict wigout ever having to dirty their hands at solving it. Yet, they are often the first retreat in the face of aggression and relinquish small victories that they can turn sour through their influence. Yielding or indulgence can only charm the fight out of potential enemies for a limited time. They never criticize people overtly to avoid making people insecure and resistant to change. So, they plant ideas, insinuate suggestions etc., while they amass power without people noticing. They lull their audience into ease. The more relaxed they become, the easier it is to bend them to their will. Some borrow an old NLP technique, know as mirroring. They adapt to their moods, posture as well as general body language. People are prone to narcissism, so they are drawn to those most similar to themselves. Those who share their values, tastes, opinions etc. This works particularly well if they are an outsider by showing that they share the values of their adopted group or country, which is also an old war custom.

The true masters this art show deep calm in the face of adversity. Their unruffled exterior puts people at ease. They seem patient, as if waiting for destiny to deal them a better card. If done subtly, their ability to enhance the lives of others will be devilishly clever. Their social skills prove important here by creating a wide network of allies that’ll give them the power to link people up with each other, which will make them feel that by knowing you they can make their lives easier. This is something no one can resist. Follow-through is key though. So many people will charm by promising a person great things, but do not follow through. Anyone can make a promise. What sets a real charmer apart is following up their promises with definite actions.

Our personalities are often molded by how we are treated. When a parent or spouse is defensive or argumentative in dealing with us, we tend to respond the same way. We respond in kind…But, never mistake peoples exterior characteristics for reality, for the character we show on the surface is merely a reflection of the people with whom they have been most in contact, or a front disguising its own opposite. Our identity is the the result of the combined effort of everyone we have ever known.
A rough exterior may hide a person dying for warmth…a repressed, sober-looking type may actually be struggling to conceal uncontrollable emotions. That is the key to charm, feeding what has been repressed or denied.
We often recognize Charmers as such. We sense their innate cleverness and in so doing we fall under their spell. The feeling that they provide is so rare as to be worth the price we pay…ot so it seems. The world is full of self-absorbed people. In their presence, we know that everything in our relationship with them is directed toward them (their insecurities, their neediness, their hunger for attention etc.). This reinforces our own egocentric tendencies, so we protectively tense up. It is a syndrome that only makes us the more susceptible to the charm of the those who don’t. First, they don’t talk much about themselves, which heightens their mystery and disguises their limitations. Second, they seem to be attentive and their interest is so delightfully focused that we relax and open up. Last but not least, Charmers are pleasant to be around. Their self-effacing attentiveness makes them a pleasure to be around…However, only from afar or for a limited time. Nobody can maintain such a persona indefinitely. No matter how addicted we might become to someones devilish charm, eventually this attraction fades as a result of the inevitable. It is impossible to contain all kinds of negative emotions forever.
Conversely, in a social setting, they can maintain their facade indefinitely, when done correctly. People tire of beauty without social grace, but they never tire of having their self-worth validated. The difficulty of this exercise is to deal with high maintenance people as though it takes no effort. Of course, there will always be difficult people (for instance, the chronically insecure, the hopelessly stubborn, the hysterical complainers). The ability to lower the defences caused by these problems becomes essential for them. They prove an invaluable skilln but they have to be careful. If they are too passive, people will run all over them and take advantage. If too assertive, they will highlight their unattractive qualities even more. However, when a level of balance is maintained, they are outwardly gracious. Inwardly,they calculate and wait…as their strategy is temporary surrender. When the time comes, and it inevitably will, the tables will turn. The targets emotions will land them in trouble eventually, allowing superiority to be regained.

The Charismatic

Today, anyone who has presence, attracts attention. They have an unusual confidence. They express a vision. We may not realize it, but in their presence we have a kind of spiritual experience. We believe in these people, without having any rational evidence for doing so. To them, it comes completely naturally, as if it came from something mysteriously beyond their control.

In our rational, disenchanting world, people crave otherworldly experience, particularly on a shared level. Any sign of charisma plays into this innate desire to believe in something beyond the physical…and there is nothing more seductive than giving people something to believe in and follow. Such leaders typically pick a cause, an ideal, a vision and show that they will not sway from their goal. From that moment on, as long as people believe they have a plan, that they know where they are going, they will follow instinctively. The direction does not even matter. As long as they project confidence that they either believe or make others believe comes from something real.

Since most people hesitate before taking any bold action (even when action is what is required), single-minded focus to act tends to draw attention. People believe in them through the simple force of their character.

Our personalities are often molded by how we are treated. When a parent or spouse is defensive or argumentative in dealing with us, we tend to respond the same way. We respond in kind…But, never mistake peoples exterior characteristics for reality, for the character we show on the surface is merely a reflection of the people with whom they have been most in contact, or a front disguising its own opposite. Our identity is the the result of the combined effort of everyone we have ever known.

A rough exterior may hide a person dying for warmth…a repressed, sober-looking type may actually be struggling to conceal uncontrollable emotions. That is the key to charm, feeding what has been repressed or denied.

We often recognize Charmers as such. We sense their innate cleverness and in so doing we fall under their spell. The feeling that they provide is so rare as to be worth the price we pay…ot so it seems. The world is full of self-absorbed people. In their presence, we know that everything in our relationship with them is directed toward them (their insecurities, their neediness, their hunger for attention etc.). This reinforces our own egocentric tendencies, so we protectively tense up. It is a syndrome that only makes us the more susceptible to the charm of the those who don’t. First, they don’t talk much about themselves, which heightens their mystery and disguises their limitations. Second, they seem to be attentive and their interest is so delightfully focused that we relax and open up. Last but not least, Charmers are pleasant to be around. Their self-effacing attentiveness makes them a pleasure to be around…However, only from afar or for a limited time. Nobody can maintain such a persona indefinitely. No matter how addicted we might become to someones devilish charm, eventually this attraction fades as a result of the inevitable. It is impossible to contain all kinds of negative emotions forever.

Conversely, in a social setting, they can maintain their facade indefinitely, when done correctly. People tire of beauty without social grace, but they never tire of having their self-worth validated.

The difficulty of this exercise is to deal with high maintenance people as though it takes no effort. Of course, there will always be difficult people (for instance, the chronically insecure, the hopelessly stubborn, the hysterical complainers). The ability to lower the defences caused by these problems becomes essential for them. They prove an invaluable skilln but they have to be careful. If they are too passive, people will run all over them and take advantage. If too assertive, they will highlight their unattractive qualities even more. However, when a level of balance is maintained, they are outwardly gracious.

Seduction and charm are the most effective counterweapons. Outwardly, be gracious. Adapt to their every mood. Enter their spirit. Inwardly, calculate and wait: your surrender is a strategy, not a way of life. When the time comes, and it inevitably will, the tables will turn. Their aggression will land them in trouble, and that will put you in a position to rescue them, regaining superiority. (You could also decide that you had had enough, and consign them to oblivion.) Your charm has prevented them from foreseeing this or growing suspicious. A whole revolution can be enacted without a single act of violence, simply by waiting for the apple to ripen and fall.

Today, anyone who has presence, who attracts attention when he or she enters a room, is said to possess charisma. But even these less-exalted types reveal a trace of the quality suggested by the word’s original meaning. Their charisma is mysterious and inexplicable, never obvious. They have an unusual confidence. They have a gift—often a smoothness with language-that makes them stand out from the crowd. They express a vision. We may not realize it, but in their presence we have a kind of religious experience: we believe in these people, without having any rational evidence for doing so. When trying to Concoct an effect of charisma, never forget the religious source of its power. You must radiate an inward quality that has a saintly or spiritual edge to it. Your eyes must glow with the fire of a prophet. Your charisma must seem natural, as if it came from something mysteriously beyond your control, a gift of the gods. In our rational, disenchanted world, people crave a religious experience, particularly on a group level. Any sign of charisma plays to this desire to believe in something. And there is nothing more seductive than giving people something to believe in and follow.

Charisma must seem mystical, but that does not mean you cannot learn certain tricks that will enhance the charisma you already possess, or will give you the outward appearance of it. The following are basic qualities that will help create the illusion of charisma:

Such leaders typically pick a cause, an ideal, a vision and show that they will not sway from their goal. From that moment on, as long as people believe they have a plan, that they know where they are going, they will follow instinctively. The direction does not even matter. As long as they project confidence that they either believe or make others believe comes from something real.

Since most people hesitate before taking any bold action (even when action is what is required), single-minded focus to act tends to draw attention. People believe in them through the simple force of their character.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power amidst the Depression, much of the public had little faith he could turn things around. But in his first few months in office he displayed such confidence, such decisiveness and clarity in dealing with the country’s many problems, that the public began to see him as their savior, someone with intense charisma.

Since most people are predictable, the effect of these contradictions is devastatingly charismatic. They make you hard to fathom, add richness to your character, make people talk about you. It is often better to reveal your contradictions slowly and subtly—if you throw them out one on top of the other, people may think you have an erratic personality. Show your mysteriousness gradually and word will spread. You must also keep people at arm’s length, to keep them from figuring you out. Another aspect of mystery is a hint of the uncanny. The appearance of prophetic or psychic gifts will add to your aura. Predict things authoritatively and people will often imagine that what you have said has come true.

Most people are predictable. Most of us must compromise constantly to survive, but some do not. Some live out their ideals without caring about the consequences. Politicians such as George Washington and Lenin won impressive reputations by living simply, despite their power. They matched their political values to their personal lives. Both men were virtually deified after they died. Albert Einstein too had a charismatic aura…childlike, unwilling to compromise and seemingly lost in his own world. The key to their charismatic personality is that they already had deeply held values, before they amassed power. Although a few power-hungry individuals have attempted to pretend to hold tightly onto certain values, they cannot fake this part for long. We have seen this with countless left-wing comedians and other celebrities, who demonise Brexit for the sake of media attention, but badmouth remainers in their dressing rooms. They do not live what they believe, therefore once the truth reveals itself…no amount of charismatic charm may save their reputation.

The level of charisma depends as much on appearance as on eloquence. Unless they attempt to make a visual statement, words are the quickest way to create emotional disturbance. They can incite any emotion without referring to anything real through simple association. However, it helps if the speaker is as as caught up in the words, as the listeners are. For example, when Winston Churchill anticipated the fall of France, he held the speech “We shall fight them on the beaches”. In actuality, it was not transmitted live over the radio and it would be decades before the recording would aired. He did, however, walk into the house of commons qnd conducted a speech that were so emotionally powerful as to determine several key moments in the war.

To pull off this type of eloquence, many people use catchwords, slogans, rhythmic repetitions, phrases for the audience to repeat. Most importantly, it customised to the audience to be easily remembered.

It should be noted here that every country has its own preferences when it comes down to the style of delivery. For instance, Churchill was a slow, authoritative speaker, whereas Hitler was far more passionate.
Both radiated self-assurance, but only Churchill impressed with his calm, reserved behaviour given the situation.

Most people are repressed, and have little access to their unconscious. This is a problem that creates opportunities for those, who can encourage others to project their secret fantasies and longings onto them. Usually they initiate the process with a display of genuine disinhibition and spontaneity. Even a hint of such qualities will make people think they more powerful than they truly are.

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.

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…

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:

What Happens When Islam Has Outbred Its Enemies?

When our primal urges are in direct conflict with our rational mind, which reasons we may only propagate our genetic code so many times before future generations suffer the repercussions in the form of inbreeding (commonly causing reduced cognitive functioning, unfavourable genetic mutations, diseases etc.), then there are bound to be consequences. In essence, what we perceive as a selfless act to gain a modicum of control to give our offsprings the best chance in life can backfire when we do not look far enough ahead. Nations that do not have sufficient access or moral quarrels about the use of contraceptives, but do not practice abstinence, naturally experience an unsustainable, continued growth of the population. At a certain point, the resources can no longer support the unstoppable expansion of the populace without drastically increasing resource production. Ipso facto, starvation or migration becomes the inevitable outcome. However, when these individuals migrate to other countries in smaller or larger groups (as a minority) with the objective to breed at an increasing pace in other to become the majority, then they are often assured victory through strength in numbers under better conditions. Historically, minorities achieved strength in numbers over decades, even centuries. At the current rates, the Arabic and African populace may establish genetic supremacy in less than 10 years under the guise of Islam. Many are concerned, asking themselves could it work? Others are scared as it has become too unsafe to conceive or raise children without fear of kidnapping, violence or state interference due to the parents political views. Truth be told, yes and no. Any ethnicity may attempt to outbreed all others, some might even have quite a head-start, but it cannot remedy the damage that we have inflicted in the soil, the water or the air on this planet already. It cannot save any species going extinct as you are reading this. As long as we adhere to the modern lifestyle as a collective, we are suffering a consistent decline in cognitive function, health and well-being. It worsens matters that our society rewards ignorance and emotional sensitivity in times of a worsening crisis, because in doing so we are propelling the sixth mass extinction even further…

More importantly, when our civilisational development stagnates and/or regresses on a planetary scale over time, our overall lifespan is expected to shorten while disease, poverty and famine becomes a common occurrence. Countries, such as Africa and Saudi Arabia, still suffer from conditions dating back to the Middle Ages due to poor sanitation, water pollution, wealth inequality and so forth. This is not news. Starving children in Africa have been a regular occurrence from the moment their natural resources were claimed by non-natives, seizing their status as a superpower in the world. Before prehistoric times, Africa was a centre of immense importance as one of the main birthplaces of humanity. (Egypt and Ireland were others.) However, the tribes still practicing the ancient customs in Africa are a mere handful. The same applies to Egypt or Ireland. Between 1840-1850, Africa lost its mines to hostile forces in the form of the Germans initially. Since then the power was just transferred from one consortium to another. To the point, what is happening right now mirrors the events in Ireland and, more importantly, Egypt. Whereas shamanic and pagan practices were submerged by Christianity over generations, Egypt lost its ancient practices to migration. Few know the pyramids were once possessed a ceramic coating, strategically riddled with gems with the capacity to generate twice the power of the Sun. Both were damaged and stolen during a Muslim invasion of Egypt, but excavations around the base have shown the sections buried in compressed sand remain intact. Threats of war on Egypt should the pyramids be destroyed and then removed have preserved them, but for how long? We have lost much of our history. What we believe our prehistory or even actual history to be is simply inaccurate. Details are omitted, while victors spin a tall tale to be drummed into impressionable minds taught not to question. Yet, what happens when the victor blindly ignores the blatant warning signs of the sixth mass extinction looming around the corner? The inevitable. Migrants stay in poorer nations, such Africa, Egypt or other predominantly Muslim countries, temporarily before they move on to settle in wealthier Christian nations. However, that is not how life works. As a Liechtensteiner, who works in one of the worst parts of England, I understand the appeal of moving somewhere to study or strive for a better life…Relocation for any other purpose than education is not a solution to the problems we face, but this is not what is happening. We aim to ignore, deny or run far away from them, but we can never succeed. Our problems are an inseparable part of our modern lifestyle. Instead of going back to live in poorer living conditions resembling those of the Middle Ages with poor nutrition, hygiene, sanitation and lack of base medical knowledge, we have the opportunity to educate ourselves about these problems. The Black Plague, for instance, was the result of a cat extermination across France that followed a deadly rodent infestation. Unbeknown to many, the plague ravaged Italy, Greece, Turkey and the Middle East long before this point. In fact, it originated from the Middle East and that is where it is returning from.

We may recognise the very nature of the cosmos centred around achieving balance through moderation in order to function at peak efficiency until one day we achieve a state of abundance. Tilting the balance of an ecosystem is therefore quite a delicate process. When we condition the ground, water and air through simple daily use, then we must expect our wide-spread actions will inevitably have wide-reaching consequences. When crop failures, water shortages, pollution and natural disasters do not reduce the rate of reproduction, more aggressive rationing strategies are implemented favouring those perceived to be more important by society. In a society with a hierarchical structure, those at the very top of the food-chain are provided with an advantage. Ergo, the most influential members on a financial and sociocultural level have an immoral advantage, heightening their chance of survival. Directly below them are those eager to embrace their views, ideas or public agenda…The percentage of the population, who are the easiest to control… Below which are those that can be turned with the threat of discomfort, pain, suffering or even death. At the bottom, there is a small percentage who cannot be bought, bargained or reasoned with. The so-called fanatics on the other end of the mental spectrum. Therein lays the problem, but that’s a story for another time. Right now, this newly established hierarchy highlights something rather curious: To analyse the state of national resources, we must only look at sales statistics. The more poverty-riddled a community becomes, the less money is available for brand goods, activities and lastly are essentials. Often before rationing is implemented, the corporate community experiences such a dip in sales that they are forced to close one facility after the other. However, private or public corporations/organisations can avoid closure by covertly extracting money from the government as well as the general populace via the government. In the UK and Europe, this happens particularly through social services in the attempt to promote economic stability as a life goal. At first glance, giving Adidas sneakers to a child or teenager seems harmless enough. But, on a deeper level, it sets a living standard. For what it is worth, as a psychologist, I have encountered a large number of people, especially in the gap generation, which wore the closest shoe size available in the local charity stores at the time. This is still a frequent occurrence in households across the United Kingdom. Over 2.2 million households in England live in constant fuel poverty during winter. PG Tips is rarely seen in the cupboard of care/support workers, just at work and in the homes of the managerial staff. While we teach our children that they can achieve anything (incl. attain a state of financial stability), they are no longer entitled to the benefits they enjoyed as a child once they reach a legally specified age. Unemployment benefits are not designed to keep natives/foreigners comfortable or warm, just barely alive with enough money to avoid starvation and rent. Since mass migration has begun to weigh heavily on countries already without the finances to keep their citizens properly nourished and warm during harsher winters, the casualty count has increased. Concurrently, the rate of migrant reproduction continues at an accelerated rate while the natives struggle to maintain suitable conditions for child-rearing. For many families, free school-meals are lunch and dinner in one. After several weeks of staying at home during the summer holidays, a significant percentage of children return with a gaunt, visibly undernourished appearance. Their parents may work a low-income job or they may not, often it hardly makes a difference financially. Few dare to even dream there could be an end to the cold winters. Even fewer dare to hope we could actually establish a world, in which fresh, unprocessed food is equally available to all. Sentiment aside, the welfare system often promotes having several children to increase the amount of money coming in. Since inbreeding heightens the chance of disability, in turn increasing the household income, it is encouraged in various ethnic regions across Britain.

From a tactical viewpoint, these expensive brand products given to migrants and children in the social system are not designed to withstand pretty much whatever can be thrown at them. For example, expensive shoes are made to be visually appealing, not structurally long-lasting. In migrant jungles, inadequate footwear (or lack thereof) greatly contributes to the accelerated increase of trenchfoot. In WW1&2, this condition became too advanced to treat medically, making amputation the last option to stop the spread. In short, France invested loads of money in products that are have the same effects as walking around barefoot at around the same time, give or take the extreme dampness. Germany provides food, often thrown away in public protest against the type of food served at the facilities, which depletes the social funds available for natives, who would eat anything without question given the opportunity. Meanwhile, groups of travelling migrants have been found to settle on farmland as police refuse to remove them, whereas others maliciously salt the ground. Make no mistake, many farmers have been put out of business due to these ‘incidences’ across Europe. This raises the number of crop failures to a catastrophic level alongside increased adverse weather conditions, pests and plant diseases that devastate more crops each passing year.

In conclusion, minorities outbreeding majorities at a rapid pace places an excessive strain on food production, especially with increased crop failures. Without the finances, workforce and resources to expand the amount of food grown, that society will experience shortages. Due to the sixth mass extinction, we are one major event away from a global catastrophe, which could be amplified by world war. The lasting impact of geo-engineering or terraforming on this planet has already reached the point of taking millions of lives each year. When we add war into the mixture, then we can easily presume billions may die.
In addition this, diseases common during the Middle Ages are returning, while the conditions around gradually expanding British No-Go Zones are deteriorating. Rubbish-heaps accumulate on the streets. However, when white council workers arrive to clear these areas, they are attacked. Then, the area complains to the council that they are forced to live in the filth. The council attempts to address the repeated attacks, as the person on the other end plays the victim. The same is happening with the Royal Mail. White postmen and women are frequently attacked, hence entire streets have been blacklisted. Again, they are not shy about launching official complaints to the Royal Mail. Police and fire departments also experience problems, they are not permitted to discuss publicly. But, you already knew that. You did not click on this article, because you already know mass migration is turning our communities into toxic rubbish dumps. The problem is that this creates an ideal breeding ground for bacteria, insects and vermin, which then roam around our food to lay eggs. These dumps pollute the air, resulting in various respiratory diseases and other adverse health effects when contaminants are absorbed from lungs into other parts of the body. The toxic substances in air contaminated by waste include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Also, this waste and its byproducts typically end up in the sea or even the regional water supplies via the surface water, negatively altering its chemical composition of the water. It affects all ecosystems existing in the water, including fish and other animals that drink from the polluted water. In such conditions, children often do not reach the age of five. According to the UN, more than 340,000 children under age 5 died from diarrheal diseases in 2013 due to a lack of safe water, sanitation and basic hygiene. In truth, that is probably over 1,000 deaths per day. More often than not, an infection spreads through a weakened system, until it reaches a major organ without which the body cannot survive, like pneumonia. It is still the deadliest condition for children and elderly, including people with certain preexisting illnesses.
Typically, families have less children as the survival rate of children themselves increases. Whereas we had ten children in the old days just in the hope just one would survive, we no longer need to take such extreme precautions. As our lifestyle in the West became more sophisticated, the casualty rates were consistently reduced along with our birthrate. However, when specific diseases return with the type of environment that they usually exist in, the casualty are inevitably going to rise again. Excuse the graphic example: The most basic hygiene problem is the l lack of adequate toilets, sanitation and knowledge thereof. Approx. 2.5 billion people do not have proper toilets. Among them, 1 billion people defecate in fields, bushes, bodies of water and the open street. I have sadly witnessed this first hand. This puts these areas and their communities in danger of fecal-oral diseases, like hepatitis, cholera, dysentery and many infectious diseases. When children run around playing barefoot in these areas or come in contact with excrement some other way, they are prone to catching worms known to impact cognitive development. It is nasty, unpleasant business what you can get from contaminated fecal matter. Although most of such diseases are not contagious, many can be transmitted via contaminated fecal matter from humans or animals and spread after the incubation phase. Tuberculosis, for instance.
Since we still function in a very tribal manner on a quite primal level, herd behaviour exerts constant social pressure on us. We are rarely left to question, think, reason and undisturbed in the modern age. For example, any medical practitioner could effectively reason that a TB epidemic is happening now, just by realising how easily TB is transmitted when contagious refugees are not segregated from the mainstream public or each other. An adult with TB could arrive in a Paris or Calais refugee camp, coughing as they march through infecting at least 10-20 people. Those people then take refuge elsewhere and the cycle continues. There is perhaps a one in a billion chance that this could give rise to a super-strain, but it is unlikely. It is more likely that the continued transmission would make the common strains more resistant to treatment, until complete resistance to antibiotics becomes inevitable. Historically, in 1851, on in four was killed by TB. By 1882, Robert Koch identified TB is caused by an organism, Mycobacterium tuberculosis. It took almost forty years, for the Housing Act to be enforced in 1919. This led to a wide scale clearance and a gradual improvement of living standards. New houses and blocks were built, which dealt with household overcrowding, reducing the transmission of TB. This solution, however, is no longer of any use to us. Unsustainable population growth has made it almost impossible to grow enough food without worsening overall imbalance with our natural environment.
More importantly, in any infectious disease scenario, implementing protective/preventative measures requires the willing cooperation, if not understanding, from the general populace. When migrants are infected and deliberately sent to a specific country (crusade warfare tactic), then they act as simple carriers brainwashed into being hard to find and generally hostile when caught. Once we add a little religious fanaticism to the mix, this scenario quickly turns into an ethnic cleansing of the West to invade and subjugate its territories through any means possible Fortunately, when it boils down to it, our offsprings are a reflection of our own psycho-physical health. Individuals, masquerading as refugees, did not travel across Europe to live long or prosperous lives. They are pawns in a much larger game. Those who sparked the mass migration, after Merkel so callously invited all the refugees to Europe, have no care for the wellbeing of foot soldiers. They expect them to be caught, incarcerated or killed in the attempt to take over. Their interest is not in the land itself. However, it would be pretty difficult to convince someone to march across Europe without the promise of a reward in exchange. Conquering forces in the Muslim faith are frequently promised the land that they seize. The problems start piling up when fantasy ultimately meets reality. For example, ‘refugees’ were quite unsettled by the periods of complete darkness in Scandinavia. Whether sun sets or does not even rise is of no consequence to us, since we are used to adjusting to the suns rotation as well as how it affects our environment. But, for totalitarians with strict requirements, no landmass will feel like home until it is almost the same. Meaning, similar in temperature, law and ultimately inhabitants. Few have the understanding that this creates conditions, which are obstacles to child-rearing.
As explained before, every few hundred years the Middle East ventures out, when they have depleted their breeding stock in order to kidnap women to fill the void. At present, at least one third of the Middle East displays signs of inbreeding, while more women simply refuse to submit to Sharia or retaliate against their own. On one hand, they hardly have any genetically viable female breeding stock left. On the other hand, they are discouraged from breeding with foreigners. Under Sharia, Arab women may be second-class citizens, but we are slaves…and children born from slaves are equally slaves. Any forced breeding, which occurs in No-Go Zones and elsewhere, serves a dual purpose. It is designed to replenish the breeding stock temporarily, while it increases the amount of cannon-fodder at their disposal during the later stages of their Holy War. As confusing as this may sound, the ultimate goal is not to take the West but transform it into a barren wasteland. Although this is only the first step, what follows would be the eradication of the need for women as a whole. Deep underneath Turkey and Saudi Arabia, research facilities are tirelessly working toward eliminating the need for women through cloning and other means. Some experiments include RH negative DNA. Considering all of this, it is improbable the coming war can be won from the bedroom by either side. When resources for the populace are at a stretch, then any increase in the population runs the risk of losing more than it saves on both sides. Ultimately, it cannot be won through  strength in numbers, only by cultivating our inherent intelligence and applying the necessary force…

We Come Back: Dying, Reincarnation & Life On Other Planets

Click Here for a copy of ‘We Are One’, the 1rst book in the series ‘Light Is…’

Click Here for ‘We Are Awakening’  and explore the 2nd part of this trilogy.

…And please take the time to check out my books in paperback form…

 

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…’.

The Bitter Truth of Leadership

At this time, we can switch on the television and witness thousands of lefties standing up for the rights of those that would exterminate them on the spot, given half a chance… They have chosen a higher path, yet most of them are unaware that this decision will seal their fate. They’d rather debase an honest discussion about their political views into name-calling instead of facing the fact that everything has pros and cons. We have opened the door to economic migrants that are simply out for what they can get with small numbers of actual refugees hiding amongst them (that are probably asking themselves whether the West has gone insane). The majority of economic migrants have no care or concern for the freedom of their host countries. This leads us to the question, why do we risk our basic human rights to protect them? Why are so many standard citizens infatuated with the idea of defending them? If the tables were turned, only for an instant, they would not reach out to save us. Truth be told, the only curtsey they would extend us is a swift execution.

To stand up for what is right has its risks, often it will be the last thing any of us will ever do in this life, but there are greater powers at play than the elite could ever fathom. Regardless how many more us will be buried, no one can successfully seize the freedom of another. The true essence of freedom is in every breath we take, it cannot cease even after we’ve drawn our last… It is infinite and absolute in all its manifestations. Nothing in all of existence can change that.

However, the illusion of control is a dangerous weapon to wield that can make anyone believe anything, given the right situation and application of pressure in all the right places. Our free will is bound by cause and effect, which means it is not free at all, until we make it so…until we realise that our will isn’t bound by circumstance, but by the motivations that drive our acroons, we shall never find freedom or peace. It is our choice to participate in this ongoing political charade or tear it all down.

We admire strength, boldness and power, so we seek those who possess it. We lavish wisdom, forethought and emotional freedom, so we strive to be near those who impart those qualities. However, to what end? Whoever becomes the centre of our focus invariably rubs off on us, but where that’ll lead is anyone’s guess. Too many falsely believe that sociopathy and psychopathy are inherited conditions… Contrary to popular belief, they are genetic as much as they are environmental. We model ourselves according to those around us by mimicking their behaviour. Nonetheless, whether we do so unconsciously or are consciously aware of this is another matter entirely.

Every leader attracts a different type of follower from the left or the right, from the lowest or the highest class… Every leader unwittingly attracts certain stereotypes that fuel their underlying agenda. For Merkel, these are the stereotypically short-sighted as well as those lacking peripheral vision in general. Very few decent, hard-working foreigners that emigrated to Germany, Austria, Switzerland and other EU member states are in support of her policies. The moment she opened her bosom to every young male from here to the Middle-East, one could see their eyes widen as they began to panic. Many escaped the situation in midst of the white flight shortly after. Not out of fear, but common sense. They, along with countless  natives, could sense that their time was running out fast. It is reminiscent of the complications that arise when a parent introduces a new sibling to the family… Those old enough to sustain themselves realise it is time to stand on their own two feet, whereas minors become acutely aware of how the power is shifting against their favour. Like Attracts Like. In the case of Merkel, the fiercer her followers become, the more unwilling they are to answer questions they don’t approve of. As she blatantly blanks the direct enquiries of her constituents with unrelated topics that make no logical sense, her supporters follow suit. It appears that the left across the entire world tore a page out of the Psychopaths Bible and did the exact opposite of what the instructions said… They do not offers answers, solutions or even consider the option of pretending to execute the will of the people. To the New Left, the people are a means to an end. They are irrelevant to the equation. They confidently act as if their rise to power is not in the hands of the people, but a small minority, controlling the majority from behind the scenes. This makes them feel as if it entitles them with the unquestionable right to belittle and devalue that which does not boost their appearance. When their stance is sensibly questioned without allowing them to evade those enquiries, they resort to offensive quips. They push them aside in a derogatory manner, while labelling those that asked them as racist. The mere fact we dare to question them is perceived as an insult, if not a direct threat. However, they don’t deal with threats like any sane individual, by taking them seriously… They ignore them, when they don’t dismiss them with the harshest words that spring to their minds at the time. Such behaviour has led many of their followers to believe, this is an acceptable way to behave. For Corbyn, this opened doors to reinforce an abhorrent, new standard in British politics. He was the first with the courage to openly ask what his party’s hearts desire. For approx. 15 minutes, he took the time to listen to what they want as well as expect from him. After he realised their views opposed his, he became the first leader to flee from the majority of his own party, and yet retain his position of leadership. The majority of Labour supporters are against immigration, not for the reason that they dislike other cultures, but because they are the cogwheels that keep this broken society running. The average, working-class person is the reason our society still functions. Granted, it barely works at the best of times, but it has not faced its inevitable collapse yet. When Labour abandoned the working class, which was no surprise, those cogwheels began to jar… Too many kept voting for them out of habit, blind faith and misplaced sympathy, not anymore. People do not like to be taken for granted, when it is them that has enabled Corbyns unfortunate rise to power. Unsurprisingly, Labours supporters are no longer white or British… They are not African-American, Asian or Indian any longer. They are no longer the party of the working-class, unless long-lasting unemployment and the unwillingness to seek paid work is categorised as the New Working Class. Moreover, their religious orientation, which was once a shining beacon of equality & diversity, has now become a party renowned for the coerced conformity of their supporters by the bleeding hearts of Britain. They may as well force their followers to convert openly instead of almost making them so do behind closed doors to prove their loyalties. In one way or another, they want to make you feel guilty/ashamed as to encourage self-loathing. Labour began to target the vulnerable and malleable members of society, whose minds are easily swayed by fear tactics. Not any kind of fear toward real-life threats, but the fear of being viewed as narrow-minded, bigoted or racist. This is basic psychological manipulation. What Corbyns upper-working/lower-middle class, left-wing supporters fail to understand is, when you have nothing for long enough, you lose all interest to maintain appearances. We don’t care how it looks. We care about what it is as well as what it will lead to. In life, nothing is ever as it seems…and we’ll do our best to never let anyone forget it. The actions of Corbyn have led a significant percentage of his followers to believe that his words serve a higher purpose than the complete religious and social indoctrination of the British people. He is the tool of the puppets that are strung along by the elite. He has lowered himself to such extreme degrees that they do not wish to be openly associated with him or scratch his back outside of dire necessity. In their minds, he lacks the intelligence and back-bone to be useful for any prolonged period of time. His control over the people is at best short-lived. As he envisions becoming Prime Minister of a non-country with the reigns firmly in his grasp, those behind the scenes laugh at his ignorance. (As much as he may be terribly oblivious of what normal people go through, no one deserves to be used only to be tossed aside like a children’s plaything.)

In addition, Corbyn deliberately disregards the historical fact that multiculturalism only works when both parties are willing to find a compromise they can live with. When multiculturalism becomes a matter of sacrificing your way of life to accommodate mass migration, it paves the way to genocide. Corbyns traitorous actions are causing direct physical, mental and emotional harm not only to the British people, but all people of all ethnicities. They are forcing decent people to hide or flee the United Kingdom, while they put genuine refugees at risk. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that his left-wing followers act in accordance with his radical views, enforcing them at every opportunity. This can solely lead to civil war, which will most likely take the form of an uprising of the right against the left, when there are obviously more pressing matters at hand. While we will waste more time quarrelling over schematics, our mutual enemies channel their energies more productively. They are breeding for war under the guise of Sharia Law. They do not require the consent of their women, when it is the sole purpose of their existence to serve them, otherwise they will attempt to terminate their existence and secure new breeding stock.