There was a world once.
It was neither silent nor dead,
It simply existed in the absence of everything…
It was everything that had been,
All that was,
And everything that could ever be…
What’s your world now?
There was a world once.
It was neither silent nor dead,
It simply existed in the absence of everything…
It was everything that had been,
All that was,
And everything that could ever be…
What’s your world now?
Last Christmas, a child went missing every 3 minutes…
Last Christmas, a child was married every 7 seconds…
Our traditions add value to our lives, as much as they teach us important life-lessons. Patience, kindness or generosity, for example. The winter season is a time, when we can pass these lessons onto our children in the form of stories, gift-giving but most importantly through leading by example.
We must never be afraid to admit that we are reluctant to relinquish our traditional values in a world that is ever-changing.
By respecting the traditions of other cultures, we must not be dissuaded from demanding an equal level of respect in return. Without respect and understanding for Britain’s cultural traditions, our values will vanish in the blink of an eye… We must protect and preserve our right to our way of life. Allowing an individual to practice their religion freely without fear of persecution also means that we should be extended the same curtesy. We, as a people, should be free to believe whatever we wish and celebrate the winter solstice however we wish (within the law of the land).
The reality is that the entirety of Europe, as well the United Kingdom, have taken a step back to comfort the male economic migrants from war-torn areas that we almost decimated for fossil fuels. We are dissuaded from attending mass or display religious symbols openly in public. We are harassed by law enforcement, when we express our concerns, perhaps more aggressively than we ought to…and just when we think enough is enough, we are coerced into sacrificing the most precious time of year. That is not multiculturalism, where cultures come together…it is monoculturalism, in which a set of cultural traditions is replaced with another.
We humans are preeminently social animal. Over thousands of years ago, our ancestors developed complex systems of grouping together as a community to improve their quality of life. During this process, their neurological make-up adapted. They evolved “mirror neurons“, which were more refined and sensitive than those of other primates. On a less refined level, these neurons assist us in mimicking behaviour (excl. genetic implications). However, the art of imitation is more than mere mimicry. “Monkey see, monkey do” will only get us so far in life. Anything further requires understanding of the mind as well as anticipation of its content in order to cultivate a seeminly genuine imitation.
In other words, what began as preverbal communication grew into something more sophisticated to allow for advanced degrees of cooperation. To hone our skills, we needed to refine our ability to detect what people are thinking and feeling. Before our reasoning powers fully unfold this way, even the most sentient beings can’t take their ability to empathise to the next level. In essence, they struggle to see patterns in peoples behavior as well as deduce peoples inner motivations, which will invariably make them appear to be socially insensitive or even callous.
Why We Possess Empathy
Compared to other animals, we remain relatively helpless for many years before we can truly operate on our own. This extended period of immaturity, lasting approx. 12-18 years, serves a valuable function. It encourages us to focus on developing by far the most important weapon in the human arsenal: our brain.
Yet, this prolonged period of dependency can build on negative but also positive tendencies. When our survival depends on the adaptability and reliability of our caregivers, we either learn to behave in ways to meet our needs or we will lack them. Although it would fill most children with unbearable anxiety to think of their parents as fallible, some don’t have a choice. They must grow up fast, so their world-understanding and sense of empathy grow accordingly.
While our capacity to understand others is still developing, we initially perceive our parents as stronger, wiser and more altruistic than they are in reality. This is due to the fact that we view their actions through the lens of our needs, and so they become an extension of ourselves. We project what we want and need to see onto those in charge of our care. Our perception of people becomes saturated with various emotions, such as love, need, sorrow or anger. Then inevitably, in
adolescence, we get a closer glimpse at the dark side of the human condition.
Empathy is the process of focusing our attention outward instead of inward, honing the observational and empathic skills that we naturally possess. It means moving past our tendency to idealise or judge…to simply see them for who they are and accept them. It is a school of thought, which must be cultivated as early as possible.
For example, in the case of Benjamin Franklin, known for his social intelligence. As the second youngest of a large extended family, he learned to get his way through charm. As he got older he came to believe, as many young people do, that getting along with others is a function of behaving charmingly and winning them over with a friendly manner. Yet, the more he interacted with the real world, the more began to see his charm as the actual source of his problem. Being charming was a strategy he had developed out of need. It was a reflection of his narcissism, of the love he had of his own words and wit. It had no relation to other people and their needs. It did not prevent them from exploiting or attacking him. To be truly charming and socially effective you have to understand people, and to understand them you have to get outside yourself and immerse your mind in their world. Only when he realized how deeply naive he had been could he take the necessary steps to move past this naiveté.
When we use empathy as a form of tactical maneuver to sway opinions, we aren’t displaying genuine care or interest in another person…
We have all reached the point of nearly tearing our hair out, when we were talking to someone who was just not listening. Even if we try to convey important information in a manner, which the person is supposed to relate to…but they just don’t give a fuck. This is not what I’m talking about. Each one of us has days, when we can’t be bothered to listen either because we are preoccupied, distracted, drained or for other reasons. There are degrees of listening. Nobody can listen 100% all the time. There is something far worse than a bad day…making a life of empathising as a means to an end. In truth, most of us have done that, when we can’t muster the genuine emotions required to get what we need to get through the day. For example, if we wanna see an action film instead of a chick flick, but he doesn’t want to.
It depends on how often we do this that makes us who we are. If we care too much, we give away so much energy to the problems of other people that we may burn out in the process. On the other hand, when we give too little, we drain energy reserves, which aren’t ours to deplete. Everything in moderation. These are the concerns of the average person, but when relating becomes tactical, empathy becomes exploitation. We witness this on a daily basis through the social imbalance of power, we come into contact with… However, we don’t expect to accept it from our friends or loved ones, even though it is commonplace. Some pass off the small white lies as a kindness, others mascarade an emptiness devoid of conscience to variant degrees. There’s a difference between a having conscience and acting on it. We can either act in accordance with our own ethical code or we can have the capacity to feel remorse. The latter usually negates the need for the former.
Where Does Real Empathy Get Us?
We all know the type of person, who spends day after day working an angle. They may use a pretty smile or kind word to their advantage, but it is a strategic attempt to achieve a very specific goal. They may care or may not care about the people, they are essentially faking almost every interaction with…but does it matter? During the act, they definitely care, just to varying degrees. However, the closer we get to reaching our goal, the less we tend to care. It is no secret that we aren’t saints, but we are often less considerate than we could be. We are prone to caring less than we pretend to. Also we are less likely to accept rejection gracefully, when we need the answer to be “yes”.
This is not the same as the desire for those interactions to be real. When we do the right thing, hoping the feeling behind them will surface eventually, we are in fact fighting our selfish impulses (sometimes genetically active traits). It is another level entirely to commit the most intimate betrayals, only to know what we are supposed to feel but don’t…If we know the damage we are leaving in our wake and simply just carry on to satisfy our own needs, then we ultimately face a worse fate.
In the end, we are all assholes on occasion, no matter how hard we try to be kind at all times…to never say no. Nobody can devote their complete attention to a person at all times, even stalkers eventually snap in the attempt. However, to truly love another as a colleague, friend or relative, we must be consistently committed and involved in fulfilling their highest potential. At times, this means just being physically present without showing any kind of judgement while they pour their heart out. Other times, it may imply tough love. To say, “No” when we are being taken advantage of by someone whose growth we care about. In truth, we always know so little or feel so much about each other as people that we fail to seize the opportunity.
What do you live for? What is the one thing that’ll keep you going, when there is no fucking point in continuing? Whatever the answer, we build our lives around it. In a way, our will to live is anchored in that. However, if we live only in the single-minded dedication to our deepest urge, we can break. We can lose ourselves while still in pursuit. Living, even for the thing we need most, can become a struggle for survival. Before we realise, we have traded our former self for obsession…to be haunted by a singular idea that engulfs everything, simply so we can function. Eventually, something’s gotta give, so I used booze to take the edge off, because if I lost my devotion to the truth, life would have no meaning…until the moment, when the sobering realisation hit me that I need to start building an actual life, which will allow me to overcome the insurmountable instead of perish as a consequence [of having seen, heard, experienced and felt too much of the relative truth and too little of the absolute due to my own ignorance].
What I do here [on this blog] is regurgitation. I work, drink, eat and sleep. My research into consciousness has been my life, since my journey to discover the absolute truth began…but to me, it has only as much value as it benefits others, screw myself. I do not require validation, just results. This is also the reason I stopped taking clients as a psychologist with a handful of special exceptions. I couldn’t handle the lack of want for progress. I’m not here to be liked or stroke anyones ego, I’m here to open minds…to give and receive homework for healing…to fucking get shit done and not just talk about it. Still, the hardest fact, we have to accept as professionals is that we could reach so few and change so little, even if we master our craft completely.
There is meaning in purposelessness
We perceive the universe from a linear standpoint [though it’s far from], which means we see reality as a sequence of cause & effect [due to our state of consciousness]. So, if we perform a certain action, then a finite number of outcomes occur. In doing so, our behaviour is designed to fulfill a very specific purpose. For example, we work to earn money as we need it to support the continuation of our physical existence.
In terms of physics, we exert energy in order to receive it within a universe, whose total sum of available energy never varies. In so being, we are presented with a finite number of options, unless we are able to harness the ability to create your own. The nature of the job may shorten or severely damage our life expectancy, but it is a daily task to fulfill the most basic of needs…and therein lies the problem. The mentality to watch out for reminders of the past and anticipate future events prevents us from fully experiencing the here and now. “If” we do this, “then” these events could happen is what we think keeps us alive…our ability to anticipate and react. If it were only so, then life would be far more straightforward. Truth be told, if time is simultaneous, then everything is happening right now. Who we were, who we are and the myriad of possible versions of ourselves, we could be are ever-present.
This three part series started with a biblical quote from Matthew: “Do not presume I’ve come to the Earth to bring peace. I’ve come but to bring a sword.” Though we crave peace, we shall not receive it until we learn to resolve each non-externalised conflict and proceed without surrender. That is what peace in the material world necessitates. A sword is merely one tool to fight one form of battle. There are as many others as there are possibilities in the multiverse. But, metaphorically, to find peace, we must bring a sword. We must be vigilant and prepared for anything. In essence, peace is spontaneous. [In the etymological interpretation of the term ‘spontaneity’, to be spontaneous is to be unaffected by external or internal events.] We may only be at peace, when what occurs within and without no longer has an impact on us…when we have outgrown the world, our conditional identity and attain a state of oneness with the cosmos. So if we can abstain from our deadliest vices and trust in a higher power, [we can work to directly experience,] perhaps then we can take control of our own causality. Until that point, however, we remain bound by shackles of our own making. How free we feel comes at the cost of something that can be taken or given at will, as does our sense of peace. Neither applies. Neither can be seized, because the sole power others have over us is the power, we allow them to exert. Neither can be recieved, just realised and cultivated, as they are preconceptual, prefated ideas prior to thought, word or language.
What happens when our body and mind no longer act as one with our spirit? When the essence of our being begs us to stop, but everything screams for release? We are presented with a choice. We have the power to choose bearing the consequences of our actions…or we can give in to the worst of ourselves. That part, which enslaves itself willingly to escape the burden of freedom.
Nobody can be free in every aspect of their lives. We can’t exist in an absolute state as we are. However, if we can bide our time, we gradually free ourselves from the self-imposed constructs that cause us suffering. One by one. It would take lifetimes, but we could do it. Still, the more issues, we deal with, the more keep cropping up. We think we are solving the problem but we are merely managing the symptoms of the root cause. Addiction is just another symptom of a larger issue. We are all dependent on something. Whether we need nicotine pumping through our veins or can’t function without coffee in the morning doesn’t matter. It’s all the same and here’s why:
We live in an interdependent universe. That implies we can never be entirely self-sufficient and thus can never truly be free from each other, the world or ourselves. So how do we cope? Denial? Brandy? Any form of distraction after the other will do…Yet, what we need is total anarchy. A state, in which we seize the right to govern ourselves. Until then, we are predestined to fight the urge until we no longer can and go down swinging…Either way, we won’t come out of this fight the same as we entered.
When we use, even if we have taken too much, we dont stop, because it has not hit us deep enough instantly. We cannot feel it. We lack the patience to wait…or perhaps we prefer oblivion. Although we need to be kind to ourselves to be free from whatever shit that plagues us, it doesn’t help. The lines of kindness becomes blurred when we provide help for others. We mistake temporary relief for permanent salvation. Our inner sweetheart doesn’t fix the mess, we have made, but the agressive assertiveness of a newborn bitch might… Nonetheless, there’s a darkness in giving into our impulses that provides the illusion of freedom…of the transient peace that we are so often denied. Sometimes, I wondered how I ever had the strength to resist…and then I think of the one thing that changed my life for the better and I find the courage to continue abstaining. Then, there’s that point in recovery, where we have to face the relative truth of our lives, even if it kills us…where I’m reminded of what I am…what I’ll always be…and that’s when I fail. I’m not ashamed to admit to it. It’s a learning curb, I havent been able to grasp just yet. After some inner disagreements, I always give in to it. All that seems to matter is he feeling of when it hits you and quiets everything inside, you are so desperate keep down, because you can’t change or accept it. Unconsciously, I would pay good money to bet, we are aiming for utter self-destruction. BUT, this is no permanent solution. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Nothing truly dies…So, we are trapped forevermore, until we free ourselves.
When we work the kinda job or live the kind of life, which doesn’t allow for a normal lifestyle, what do functioning addicts do? If all we manage as a meal is a bite or two before we rush off to rectify the next emergency, it can bring us a level of peace. The peace that comes from letting go temporarily. No matter how much we love what we do. When our work is our life, if nothing can give us the same types of satisfaction, there are more restorative kinds… We cannot expect find absolute peace through relative means. What we can anticipate, however, is the resurgence of buried needs until they’re fulfilled, unless we deal with them or overcome them. The only mechanism to bypass this involves unconventional options.
It should be noted, women experience the process differently compared to men. The primary purose of more masculine qualities is short-term defence for long-term protection, whereas a womans is short- and long-term preservation. The methods used are applied very differently and in dissimilar circumstances [i.e. there are set biological genders but any person can channel more or less masculine/feminine energy and thus fall into either category due to to epigenetic predispositions].
In truth, we are far more than our preconceptions, but they make who we think we are. When at the core, all it takes is the real us. Even if we think our own efforts aren’t enough. Sometimes ‘enough’ is what we can bring ourselves to do. After the life I have led, I didn’t believe there was anything more significant to me than shielding myself the world, the system, an inner darkness…in the pursuit of something greater…Perhaps, there isn’t anything but the depraved purity of experience. Perhaps, there is. Only time will tell, but for now, is definitely nothing more important than the fight for stability through clarity.
What is peace? We often mistake the feeling of contentment with peace, but few of us will truly know what peace is until they are swept off their feet by it.
That which brings us momentary peace in our daily lives is a misleading form of sense gratification. It is designed to give the illusion of lasting happiness, based on being satisfied with the situation is right now. However, we are not really, we are? After that tiny instant has passed, we strap ourselves back into an emotional rollercoaster of our own making. Truth be told, we choose to suffer through the choices, we have made and continue to make. To detach from this is easier said than done. We cannot simply switch our emotions off. The way we think persists, even if we attempt to force ourselves not to. In fact, the more pressure, we apply on ourselves, the less likely we are to change. We can’t force anyone to do anything that they do not want or are not ready for yet…Including ourselves…We can, however, encourage growing out of behaviour that no longer supports our continued development.
What I’ve learnt is that people prefer my fictional works over the factual content. A few days ago, I sold my first poem before hitting rock-bottom after a very painful relapse. With the amount of alcohol, I consumed, any amateur would have given themselves a hospital level case of alcohol poisoning.
Once again, the same life lesson emerged from the experience:
“Control your mind,
or others will do it for you.”
What triggered the urge to drink initially was something extremely positive, then I was offered to write some poetry, so I set off on my merry way to do just that in a clean and sober state…But things rarely turn out how we expect. Sometimes, we look back and end up asking ourselves, did that just fucking happen? The more relevant question is, why did it happen? Why did we begin to indulge in excess in the first place? If we’ve stopped before, what helped us do so? And lastly, what keeps setting off our need for that substance?
In general, the answers to these questions are designed to form a bigger picture of our triggers. After such deep soul-searching, the process of healing can begin, during which we are encouraged to avoid exposing ourselves to the risks of relapse. This is the reason why rehabilitation treatment comes in three forms:
Have you seen many serious addicts without a support system stay clean for long without a realistic mission to dedicate their lives to? I haven’t.
Goals are no longer enough at a certain depth of desperation. We drink…We swallow pills…We shoot up…Because otherwise we’d do something, we may regret. When I used to need days to pass quickly in anticipation for something, I would complete all necessary tasks…and just get pissed so hard I wouldn’t remember, I wouldn’t feel the weight of time passing. In fact, I used to bottle things up so deep that they would come out in the most vile manner, even if more pressing matters were at hand. I learnt that the hard way, when I first began blacking out. Luckily, I have never managed to harm myself in the process, others are not so lucky. We can harbour feelings of hurt, buried in layers, which over time grow so intense, we need to black out. We cant consciously express them, so fragments of space-time go missing, in which our inner hellcat takes the wheel…Most of my type of user cant allow themselves to lose control, so we maintain our emotional presence through other means in the absence of another outlet. Hell, we can’t even try to off ourselves sober, because we are too attached to everything around us, but we often don’t feel connected in the slightest. Some of us have numbed themselves to the point of blocking the biochemical processes responsible until the very worst stages of recovery. Others, like me, who lack certain psycho-emotional building blocks, coped without until an event or seveal so big that we can’t cope any longer. When we reached out, and received no help, regret still surfaces for asking after every relapse. In truth, the more we reach out for human connection and are frequently/infrequently rejected, the more we lose faith in a permanent state of recovery….in life as a functioning member of whatever system, we use make sense of communal life in the universe. Mind you, we lose “faith”, not belief. We lose the ability to trust in ourselves, as a result of what we perceive as consistent failure. It’s a tragic tale that applies to countless just like me. We are campaigned for en masse, but when we are encountered on the street, we inspire pity at best and disgust at worst. We are fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters…but we often have no one to turn to. Oh sure, there is rehab, but I’d rather face a hard time with familiar people whose care can sustain a lasting recovery than with a kind stranger, who’ll probably burn out sooner or later just like I did. The sytem can’t work, if the values that created it are fucking disappearing by the day!
For what it’s worth, what we suffer from is innately idiopathic. It’s nameless, faceless and without empirically-verifiable origin. It is a byproduct of the human condition, as so many others.
The problem becomes when we are the primary trigger for our excessive use. The root cause tends to lead back to deeply held beliefs, embedded to support our physical, psychological as well as emotional survival. We cannot persevere, if we can’t function, so we find ways to cope. As a temporary measure, this is socially acceptable. For instance, after a rough break-up. Yet, as a long-term option, it is rather frowned upon. So, where is the cut off point between short and long term usage? Right where the spur of the moment used to cope becomes habit…But just before it is a lifestyle choice.
It should be noted, the way our cortices maintain themselves is by forming new connections all the time. For example, when we continue indulge, and then persevere through recovery alone, we form different neuronal connections by cultivating different skills from those with support. For serious addicts with trust issues, their suspicious nature spells trouble. God, we try to trust, but the high cuts the risk. When we do without, its serious shit…
What makes your knees weak? What causes your stomach to tighten? What touches you deep within? What makes you feel so safe that you crawl inside yourself in fear of the feeling?
It is rational to think that painful or even traumatic events can lead us to resort to destructive coping strategies. However, the opposite also applies to recovering addicts, who are doing exceptionally well. When our life as a sober person improves consistently, we can humbly appreciate our accomplishment, but never truly rest…Until that one event takes place, which tilts the balance of ultimate contentment. We let someone or something in so deep at that point of healing, we feel whole again. Relapse at this stage is a lose-lose situation. If they back off, then the addict is most likely suffer worse or even give up on recovery. If they come clean, then the wrong person is being punished for doing the right thing. They do not deserve that, if the addict can get clean immediately after the slip-up. However, in deal circumstances, communication and understanding are vital. If the slip-up turns into a secret binge, it must end there…before DT [delerium tremens] or other withdrawal symptoms become an issue again.
At one month clean, I had the best fucking weekend of my life…I was touched so intensely by another person that the thought of drowning the feeling was “safer” compared to the alternative of allowing myself to truly let someone in. In other words, positive change triggers relapse, because we crawl inside ourselves to avoid the pain, we are anticipating. Pain, which might or might not happen.
In a dualistic universe, pleasure always proceeds pain. The up and downs of living become normal, so we cope with them instead of aiming to overcome their cyclical influence. Put differently, we become used to the extreme ends of feeling. This is dangerous for any regular person, but with an addict, it can be deadly. The effect a particular substance can have on the brain differ from drug to drug. However, they typically all interfere with the normal functioning of the hypothalamic pituitary axis [HPA]. That means the recovery process will invoke emotions designed to be powerfully cathartic. Ideally, meant to resolve the underlying issue that led to the self-destructive behaviour. If it’s the surfacing pain of a traumatic event or several, we need to process it. Whatever the issue, we must heal, overcome and adapt. Nothing else will permanently make our way of coping go away.
For what it is worth, I do not believe I physiological addiction as such. All forms of addictive behaviour originate in the mind. In my and other cases, they are a result of lacking the necessary self-discipline to maintain a normal lifestyle. Like many functioning users, we give in to cope but destroy ourselves by doing so. I’ve never been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, not for lack of trying. I’ve never had help getting clean, not for lack of asking. Few know, while even fewer pretend to care, but none would go very far to clean me up themselves. Emptying a bucket into the toilet, when I could barely stand was about the maximum effort. These would be the moments, when my body was rejecting that which it’d become so accustomed to. At any other point, I would self-medicate at infrequent intervals in order to avoid ‘bothering’ anyone with what should be a priority for the commonly decent. In fact, I would regularly support the habits of others, just for a place to DT privately…in proximity of sober-enough people to call an ambulance, if an actual emergency arose… It became normal to care as little about myself as others did, but this wasn’t a sudden occurrence. It was a fucking gradual process that took place over decades. With every setback, it became more important to function effectively. With every soul-deadening compromise, there was never any time to pause afterward. Then, trapped in an environment, I couldn’t escape, I was offered temporary salvation. After working with two fucked discs for a couple of years in constant agony, I had begged my family to help, but they refused to take me in…I had nobody to turn to and nowhere to go, but from that first real stupor, I no longer cared. As though, the worsening state of affairs could not affect me anymore. When the situation eventually changed, my new identity had invaded every aspect of my being. By the time, I was able to seek medical treatment and get clean, I had become someone, I didn’t wish to recognise. No guilt. No shame. No self-loathing. Just nothing at all. I was free from everything but enslaved.
If I have learnt anything,
It is that everything comes at a price.
Before a relapse, we must always ask ourselves is it worth the risk? In truth, perhaps, it can be. Raised in a society, in which we calculate the value of a person by their latest achievement, what do we expect? We begin to treat our lives as disposable instead of a never-ending wonder to be cherished. Sure, we function, but at the cost of drowning our potential. What we are attempting to get away from is just as present, when we are using, as when we are not. The only difference is our level of awareness. If we are willing to care for ourselves to the extent that we do for what functioning brings us…then, we must learn to say “No”, when doing something that will trigger a relapse, but never use it as an excuse not to step up to the task at hand. We must never let our addictive tendencies become a means to close ourselves off from people or experiences, which may transform the way, we perceive the world.
Was there a time in your life, in which you questioned your loyalty to those around you or even to yourself? Although it is bound to occur sooner or later, it happens far too early and far too frequently for some. The reason for this is not the devolution of society, community or the family unit, but rather the concept of “knowing” itself.
In order to know anything, we must adhere to the same principles as the observer effect, which it turn means that knowing shares some of the same implications.
In the realm of physics, everything has a cause and yields an effect. Ergo, everything happens for a reason, even if the reason does not seem all that apparent. In probablistic algorithms, this includes the act of learning that ultimately leads to the attainment of further knowledge in the future. Consider this process in slow motion:
When perceive knowing from this standpoint, how we trust becomes a consequence of a long-winded thought process, starting at the beginning of our individual consciousness.
Without the fundamental knowledge about an object or subject, we are only able to draw a finite number of conclusions. So, at times, we are lulled into complacency and trust on faith….However, instead of an assent of the mind to the truth, our blind reliance on others can carry a steep price, if we are not careful.
In any case, the tendency to trust too easily as well as the inability to trust are a symptom of a larger problem. These opposite ends of the “trust spectrum” also happen to address a rather relevant philosophical conundrum that may bridge the gap between the two extremes: the absolute aspects of “knowingness” in relative space-time.
On this note, we arrive at the question what is knowing? The term dates back to the 14th century, when the adjective was defined as “with knowledge of truth”, which leads us to ask, what is truth? Now, truth exists in two forms in a dualistic universe or universe with a circular spectrum: (1) relative and (2) absolute. In both forms, truth is often equivalated with proper awareness. Conversely, what we define as proper is determined by social standards. Our oldest understanding of proper means to be adapted to some purpose. In ideal world, the purpose would be honourable, filled with noble intentions to shape a world free from suffering. Yet, in any society, the purpose is swayed by mainstream information. Ultimately, this purpose can eiher bring us toward or further away from expanding our consciousness. Even when we are in a state of apparent stagnation, there is still movement in the form of tempero-spatial progression. In simple terms, our consciousness still perceives what is happening as sequence of events within the space time continuum from our individual perspective. This often comes with an involuntary confirmation bias, in which we interpret reality in a way that confirms our personal as well as collective preconceptions. Hence, we draw conclusions in the absence of experiential evidence prior to the self. Far too often, we do not even attempt to verify what we think to be true.
In addition, at higher levels of consciousness, all-time occurs simultaneously while all-space converges. All that was, is or could ever be happens all at once as a seemingly singular, interconnected movement known as our universe. In essence, our universe is the result of a chain-reaction, from which gazillions of possibilities unfold, but onle one can manifest.
When we stand further back to perceive our universe as just one possible form of existence, we are simply one string interweaved in a myriad of others. We could argue, all of which are circular and explore the implications. We could envision a cascade of never-ending existences, trying to imagine what they would be like. However, we can only know by being…through that long-winded battle of striving to attain a state of infinite existence and succeeding…
To clarify, our universe is merely a tiny ripple in a vast cosmic sea of possible realities, just as we are a tiny ripple in the bottomless ocean of society. So, all we know seems circumstantially relative, but becomes much more definitive when we translate knowledge into action. For example, we can think the Earth is flat but when we hop into a spaceship to check, it’ll be an oblate spheroid. Push come to shove, what we know is only as true as our ability to prove the fact. Put in context with our societal hierarchy, this implies that our knowlege is only as good as how we present our case. Whether we are speaking the truth sadly doesn’t matter as much as it should. Though we can change that through nurture, we can’t change nature. For instance, we can create an environment, in which we foster open-mindedness and curiosity, but we can’t force everyone to be tolerant to each other around the clock every day. When ideas collide in the search for the absolute truth, there is going to be fallout and the ego will be the first casualty. So, the most important rule in our search is to leave our ego behind. In doing so, we don’t argue as much as we try to understand where the other person is coming from.
Who The Fuck is Right?
Your truth, my truth, who the fuck is actually right at the end? Honestly, both but no one. We may understand the manner, in which a person perceives anything, yet we can never be certain that they aren’t lying to themselves. We might believe we know another inside out, just to realise eventually that we never truly knew them at all. Everything is relative, capable of being interpreted in the exact opposite way. It is a simple matter of subjective experience, giving rise to relative truths.
For example, in the case of eyewitness statements, this becomes deadly apparent. Although everyone involved witnessed the same incident, the descriptions wildly differ. While our recollections are only as reliable as our memory, how and what we remember depends greatly on our thought processes. In fact, our thoughts shape our memory not only through neuronal connections, but through the reason why we interpret things the way we do.
To be who we are means constant effort for our body and mind. From birth onward, we develop and maintain an identity, dependent on conditional factors. People, events and the world helps mould what we have already become. So, without the occurrence of certain defining moments, we cease to be the current version of ourselves.
Our mind is endlessly processing what has, is and may happen. Content continuously rises to the surface and falls underneath the line of conscious or voluntary recollection. We never stop forgetting and remembering, unless we still the mind completely. Moreover, it takes persistent practice to be present in the now. We must be consistent in our effort to care more for the truth than our personal interpretation.
For what it’s worth, we rarely notice how our own personal perception of reality creates bias in our judgement of what we believe to be the truth. We forget to consider sides to a subject, for instance, because we associate negatively with them. We overestimate the importance of specific factors due to positive experiences in the past. From a primal standpoint, our physical, emotional and social survival relies on remembering some things but forgetting others. Through the evolution of our consciousness, however, we can choose to do neither. We can position ourselves on the fine line in between. We can be vigilant without judging ourselves or those around us. We can just be in the moment, observing…contemplating the absolute truth from within the confines of relative existence…But it wouldn’t be enough.
To discern something as complex as the absolute truth from a version of the relative is not a simple task. To know the absolute truth about ourselves, we need to remove the influence of all relative aspects that make up our personality. This is also a rather painful key to lasting happiness in yogic non-attachment practices. To discover the absolute truth about the many worlds, we must delve into the origin, nature and purpose of existence prior to the relative. If all is mind, then truth is a multi-faceted, collective construct. It contains ego-destroying layers of personal perspectives from every possible angle inside a vast consciousness, whose probability of ending is zero…So, are you ready?
The concept of love predates mankind as a species. Some claim, it is even older than time itself. Whereas our ancestors knew mutual respect, comradeship and shared understanding is essential to the continued survival of their tribe, we believe we perceive love in a more sophisticated light…but do we, really?
“One result of the mysterious nature of love is that no one has ever,
to my knowledge, arrived at a truly satisfactory definition of love.”
However, nothing can restrain the curiosity of spirit. Over the epochs, we have attempted to fit love into various categories, such as eros, philia, agape; perfect love and imperfect love and so on…In a very real sense trying to understand love is attempting to examine the unexaminable and to know the unknowable. It is different every time and with every person in very apparent but also quite subtle ways. Overall, love is too large, too deep ever to be truly understood or measured or limited within the framework of words. Its versitable, adaptible nature makes it beyond the explainable.
Scott Peck defines love as the will to extend one’s self for the purpose of ones own and anothers spiritual growth. I, however, disagree slightly…It is the compulsion to do so…
By use of the word “will”, he tried to transcend the distinction between desire and action. Desire is not necessarily translated into action. Will is desire of sufficient intensity that it is translated into action. The difference between the two is equal to the difference between saying “I would like to…” and “I will….” Thefore, the want to love is not love itself. After all, love is as love does. We cannot choose who we converse well with on a platonic level, nor can we choose whom we fall in love with. By defining love as an of will, he inferred that it is an act of intention as well as action. He argues, he we dont have to love, as it is a choice. In my professional opinion, this is only partially true. What when we like someone very much, each day we see them but never pursue them because we have decided not to? We would continue to feel a great deal of affection toward them, there would simply be no desire translated into action, which is rather essential for the bonding process to begin.
Yet, before we continue as to the reason why, it must be noted that in many cases, we may be motivated by something other than love without conscious knowledge, and that what seems to be love is often not love at all. One of the major distinguishing features between what we perceive to be love and that which is real love is the conscious or unconscious purpose in the mind of the person. Furthermore, love is a strangely circular process, which we expand our consciousness in an evolutionary sense.
In other words, when we love, we extend our limits, give our all, or even learn to love parts of ourselves that we don’t.
The act of “loving” is an act of self-evolution even when the purpose of the act is someone else’s growth. It implies effort. We can only extend limits by exceeding them, but exceeding limits requires work. However, when we love someone, this exertion appears to make the connection demonstrably real. It can make any sacrifice worthwhile. Moreover, as a form of energy, love can power the extra step, we take for others, if we let it. Just beware, love is not effortless. To the contrary, love is effortful.
Falling in Love
“Of all the misconceptions about love the most powerful and pervasive is the belief that “falling in love” is love or at least one of the manifestations of love.”
It is a potent misconception, because falling in love is subjectively experienced in a very powerful fashion as an experience of love. While we are still wearing rose-coloured glasses, we perceive a romanticized image of the person rather than the person itself. When we fall in love what we certainly feels is “I love him” or “I love her.” More importantly, two complications become immediately apparent:
To understand the nature of the phenomenon, it is necessary to examine the nature of our ego boundaries. As infants, we do not distinguish between ourselves and the rest of the universe. The animate and the inanimate are the same. There is no distinction yet between I and thou. We and the world are one. There are no boundaries, no separations. There is no identity, just personality traits in the early stages of development.
With experience, a sense of the “me” begins to develop. This interaction between the infant and the parents is believed to be the ground out of which the child’s sense of identity begins to grow. It has been observed that when the interaction between the infant and its parents is disturbed. For example, due to the breakdown of the family unit [i.e. when there is no parent, no satisfactory substitute or when because of their own mental illness, they are uncaring or uninterested, then the infant grows into a child or adult whose sense of identity is lacking in the most basic ways.]
The development of such boundaries is a process that continues through childhood into adolescence and even into adulthood. Generally, the boundaries established later in life are more mental than physical. For instance, at every stage of life, we typically come to terms with the limits of our power on various levels. For instance, it is namely known as the “terrible twos” because of this learning curb. It is the hope and feeling of immediate gratification that can make any twoyear-old usually attempts to act like a tyrant and autocrat, trying to give orders and respond with regal fury when they won’t be dictated to. By the age of three the child usually accepts the reality of its own relative powerlessness.
“Still, the possibility of omnipotence is such a sweet, sweet dream that it cannot be completely given up even after several years of very painful confrontation with one’s own impotence.”
Although we come to accept the reality of our boundaries, we will continue to escape occasionally for some years into late adulthood.
Falling in love is the world of Batman and Captain America. By the time of mid-adolescence, we have already been conditioned that we are individuals, confined to the boundaries of our bodies and the limits of our power…that each one of us is a relatively frail and impotent organism, existing only by cooperation within a group of fellow organisms called society. Within this group, most of us are not particularly distinguished, but we often separate ourselves from others through our individual identities, boundaries or limitations.
In truth, it is lonely within the socratean confines of the fractured self. Some, particularly those who’ve suffered traumatizing experiences, perceive the world outside of themselves as unredeemably dangerous, hostile and unnurturing. Such people feel their ego boundaries to be a protecting and comforting influence. Through them, they find a sense of safety in their loneliness. However, the majority feel our loneliness to be painful, so yearn to escape from behind the walls of our individual identities to a condition in which we can be more unified with the world outside of ourselves. The experience of falling in love allows us this escape temporarily. “The essence of the phenomenon of falling in love is a sudden collapse of a section of an individual’s ego boundaries, permitting one to merge his or her identity with that of another person.” We experience the sudden release of ourselves from ourselves. A surcease of loneliness accompanying this collapse of boundaries ensues and we feel freer than we did before.
In many respects, but certainly not all, the act of falling in love is an act of deep regression. The experience of merging with a loved one reminds us of a time when our identities were submerged in a unified state of universal consciousness. Along with the re-emergence of this microcosmic oneness, we also re-experience a sense of omnipotence which we had to give up in our journey to take form.
The unreality of these feelings when we fall in love is essentially the same as the illusion of separation. We feel the world at our fingertips with unlimited power at our disposal. However, just as reality intrudes upon the fantastical notion of omnipotence as an individual, so does reality intrude upon the fantastic unity of any couple in love. Sooner or later, in response to the problems or daily routine of life, our individuality reasserted itself. For example, he wants to have sex, she doesn’t. She wants to go out, he doesn’t etc.
Our desires are not always going to be in harmony with the wants of others. In the beginning, we can be who we are, pretending to accept and be accepted unconditionally, but honeymoon phase will ultimately pass. Over time, ego boundaries to snap back into place, which is when couples fall out of love. At this point they begin either to dissolve the ties of their relationship or initiate the process of real love.
Actual love often occurs in a context in which the feeling of love is often lacking [i.e. hen we act lovingly despite the fact that we don’t feel all that affectionate].
Falling in love is not an act of will. It is not a conscious choice. No matter how open to or eager we may be for it, the experience may still elude us. Contrarily, it may capture us at a time when we are not seeking it, when it is inconvenient or even undesirable. We are as likely to fall in love with someone with whom we are obviously ill-matched as with someone more suitable. Indeed, we may not truly like or admire the object of our passion, just as we may not be able to fall in love with a person whom we deeply respect and with whom a relationship would be a decent match in all ways. This is not to say that the experience of falling in love is immune to discipline. To be frank, we are usually able to abort the collapse of our ego boundaries and give up our romantic interest. The struggle involved can be enormous. Furthermore, such a strategy is frequently recommended by mental health professionals, when a liaison is dangerous, self’destructive or inappropriate for either person.
Only disciplined will can control the experience, but it cannot create it.
In other words, we can choose how to respond to the experience of falling in love, but we cannot choose the who, how or when. We can’t control the nature of the experience itself.
Whereas falling in love is a partial and temporary collapse of ego boundaries, love is permanently self-enlarging experience. The extension of our limits requires effort. Once the comparatively short moment of falling in love has passed, we are usually none the wiser for the experience. When limits are extended or stretched, however, they tend to stay stretched. While falling in love has little to do with purposively nurturing our spiritual development or that of others. If we have any purpose in mind when we fall in love, it is to escape our own loneliness. We are certainly not thinking of enlightenment. Perhaps, after we have fallen in love and before we have fallen out of love again…
It is through reaching toward evolution that we evolve .
Falling in love is in fact very close to real love. The misconception that falling in love is a type of love is so potent precisely because it contains a grain of truth.
The experience of real love also has to do with ego boundaries, since it involves an extension of one’s limits. One’s limits are one’s ego boundaries. When we extend our limits through love, we do so by reaching out, so to speak, toward people, whose growth we wish to nurture. For us to be able to do this, we must first be attracted toward, invested in and committed to an object outside of ourselves, beyond the boundaries of self.
When we bond with an object outside of ourselves, we also incorporate a representation of that object into ourselves. For example, let us consider any hobby. When we develop an interest in something, like cooking, we start small but before we know it, we “love” doing it. Preparing our own meals instead of microwaving pre-processed junk gradually means more to us. We invest in learning the skills involved in performing that particular activity in order to improve. We inadvertantly learn a great deal about our abilities [i.e. strengths, weaknesses, how to overcome the limitations of either…]. We also understand more about our environment as well as the people surrounding us. For instance, historical context, preferences, problems, future possibilities etc.
Despite the fact that the act happens outside of us, through our attention to it, it comes to exist within us. Our knowledge of it and the meaning it has for us are part of him, part of our identity, part of our history, part of our wisdom. In doing so, we have incorporated it in quite a real way within ourselves, and through this incorporation, we expand our consciousness.
What transpires then in the course of many years of “loving”, of extending our limits in the act, is a gradual but progressive enlargement of the self, an incorporation within of the world without, and a growth, a stretching and a thinning of our ego. In this way, the more and longer we extend ourselves, the more we love, the more blurred becomes the distinction between the self and the world. We become identified with the world. And as our ego boundaries become blurred and thinned, we begin more and more to experience the same sort of feeling of ecstasy that we have when our ego boundaries partially collapse and we “fall in love.” Only, instead of having merged temporarily and unrealistically with a single object, we have merged realistically and more permanently with much of the world.
“Pain is inevitable,
Suffering is optional…”
The word ‘pain’ defines a condition of consciousness, in which we experience hardship. In simple terms, it it the condition of having been injured either physically, mentally or emotionally… However, must pain always invoke suffering?
In simple terms, no. At the deepest depths of pain, suffering can become a reality as a result of emotional as well as psychological attachment. In romantic relationships, this can be to the person, who inflicts violence and abuse on an unassuming victim. Yet, more often than not, it is an attachment to our preconceptions.
We believe pain must inevitably lead to suffering, therefore we simply accept suffering as an unchanging, immutable companion of pain…
Where Does Pain Begin?
In the mind, always. From a biochemical perspective, pain starts a spark in the wiring of the brain [i.e. neurotransmitter signaling]. Yet, on a quantum level, any type of pain is mere information. For example, when we put our hand in a burning fire, we are basically reaching into a cobweb of particles that are moving much faster than our own. What we experience as “Ouch, that’s hot.” is a small collision of particles, communicating the extent of the injury. In terms of thermodynamics, two objects are initiating thermal contact, in which they are exchanging energy, but cant achieve an equilibrium. As particles collide, the cells in our hands are acutely aware of what is happening. This causes a wave of signals to surge through the sympathetic nervous system to initate a pre-conditioned response to the experience. As a darwinian throwback, it takes great willpower to keep our hand in the fire, the more intense the flames.
Psychological pain is akin to its physical counterpart in that it is governed by similar laws
As we burn ourselves, we experience a drain on our energy reserves. This drain persists until the injury has healed fully. The pain is a byproduct of not merely the experience, but its engram…the physical equivalent of its impression on the individual consciousness.
However, in the spiritual sense, pain is a result of conflict. The multiverse functions very similarly to a self-contained holomovement, in which various domains of space-time are [thought to be] casually interlinked. From the moment of the Big Bang, universe after universe emerges…yet they remain an intrinsic part of an interconnected whole. Without them as a form of containment unit for space-time, energy-potential could not become energy and energy could not be condensed into matter.
Therein lies the origin of conflict. In an interconnected whole, we are an indivisible part of the totality of the multiverse. We no longer exist as individuals or a planetary collective, we are at one with the cosmos as well as that which gave rise to it. We may feel we are linked as a people or cosmic whole of consciousness, but we rarely translate this knowledge into an actuality.
For what it is worth, realisation of such multiversal unity is as destructive as it is liberating, hence few choose this path. Even at the highest point of enlightenment in the physical body, pain persists, because we remain in the confines of relative existence [i.e. space-time].
Where does suffering end?
What’s the root cause of mental, emotional or physical suffering? Giving power to that which we have no direct control over is what causes suffering. In other words, we relinquish control, which in turn serves as a source of pain that leads to suffering.
Focus on what you can directly control and accept what you cannot.
There’s a dark gap between what you’re doing and what you’re truly capable of. For instance, when we aim to complete a task, we follow our objectives in order to achieve a level of success. This success is more often than not defined by attaining a specific goal, we have no direct control over. Mentally speaking, when we work toward any goal, our mind is preoccupied by past attempts and preconceptions about the future, so it cannot fully concentrate on the process to improve it while it is still ongoing. Our actions throughout the process are fully under our control, but we are too occupied to focus on the present moment.
If we define success as giving our best in the process, then we cannot fail, feel calmly confident, and can accept any outcome with equanimity.
Suffering is the psychological resistance to what happens. A person can inflict physical pain on us, but suffering only come from resisting what is, from fighting with reality…although it’s futile to fight them, because we can’t change or undo what already is. Nevertheless, we fight with reality all the time in our desire for it to be different. We must have it our way, the way we want it, the way we expected it to be…
Whenever we desire something that isn’t in our power, our sense of inner confidence as well as tranquility is shaken. Often, if we don’t get what we want, we’ll be upset, but if we do, we will experience anxiety, apprehension and insecurity. Therefore, we should always focus on what is now…what we can control our actions but not the outcome. We can give all that is in our power, but we must invariably accept whatever happens.
Focus on what you control, and take the rest as it happens in order to make the most of it.
External factors may have the power to affect how and even whether you live, but they don’t have the power over your spirit in this life and those yet to come. Only you yourself can give them this power over the deepest part of you [by failing to act as well as you’re capable of].
We must make sure that our happiness depends as little as possible on internal or external factors. There should be only a loose connection between what happens to us and how happy we feel. We may focus on what we control, trying to make the best of any given situation and only wanting what is within our power…However, that still invites suffering. It is never possible to make happiness consistent with longing. True happiness implies the possession of all which is desired, yet we can never obtain all we desire.
So, what we aim for is a transient state of conditional happiness. We bind our happiness to some past, present or future event. Time after time, we promise ourselves, we will be happy after we have achieved our next goal, but we never are.
We never experience happiness, because we are never satisfied. It’s like trying to wall off the edge of the Earth, we can walk for miles and miles but won’t get any closer. Either we keep on yearning for stuff we don’t have, or we actually have a chance for happiness. We can’t have both. True happiness is when you have all you desire at the point when you desire nothing from the world or it’s people.
If we wish to be unconditionally happy, we must seek happiness within ourselves.
We’ve been equipped with the necessary tools to create a satisfactory life, regardless the hardships we face in life. So, if we want to be content, we must change ourselves and our desires. We cannot change the things that happen in the world around us, we can only change the way we look at those things and what we choose to make out of them
Have you ever looked into someones eyes, wanting to believe them but just knew how badly it would end and tried anyway? Have you ever steered your chosen destiny off course, just because it felt right? Have you ever yearned for the presence of another person so intensely, you’ve felt disconnected from the world and all those within?
While you pursue your dreams,
Be mindful of the passage of time.
Persist against the odds.
Live to think freely…
When you wake up in the morning, what’s the first thought that echoes through the corridors of your mind? What’s your last thought, before drift sweetly into the endless night? When we think of specific people, objects or experiences, they merely represent what our heart longs for at its core. However, getting what we want can never still its desire completely. To live is to want the next best thing, or so it might seem…
In truth, there is a fickleness in our affection or loyalty toward what we desire. At each moment, what we want can change…and thereby our dreams.
Nevertheless, there are constant yearnings that are well hidden underneath our seemingly capricious nature. Each day, these dreams surface quietly and often unnoticed…Still, they are there for our entire lives.
If dreams perish slowly until that one fateful day, on which they inevitably die a violent death, they merely sink to the bottom of the conscious mind…They remain ever-biding their time for some form of ambiguous hope. In its absence, they tend to linger in a state, where they continue to draw energy from the body as well as the mind [to exist]. Should they surface prematurely, when they can be fulfilled in a way that will integrate them into the active aspects of the mind, then unprocessed wounds may heal and form barely noticable scars. Conversely, should they rise before their time, then the dream may die once more. At times, this can be less excruciating, but more often than not, the pain increases. Old wounds reopen as new ones are inflicted on top of them. Afterwards it is fairly natural for the dream to sink down even lower. Dependent on the intensity of the trauma, it can be fully/partially suppressed or it might just hover on the border between the conscious and the unconscious…
Denial differs from suppression in one significant aspect. Pretending a dream was never conceived or a series of events never took place isn’t the same as inhibiting memories of it.
So, when you ask yourself, what is that one secret flight of fancy, which will never relinquish its hold over me…How would you answer?
Let your mind grow silent and calm. Contemplate if there was nothing, what would I long to do most of all? After various ideas, perhaps the truth will reveal itself.
It should be noted that it takes years to unbury and contemplate each one. What every dream represents is a door to self-fulfilment in the form of self-realisation. Karma yoga, cosmic unity through action and therein resultant experiences. Now, the key is to uncover our innermost self in order to pursue a dream worth fighting for. Regardless of the struggle, we face along the way, we must pick something that we are able to persevere with. No dream is worth dying for unless it changes at least one other persons live for the better permanently…
Who are you undereath? What makes you tick? More importantly, what would it take for you to break?
We each have our particular weaknesses to be exploited by those for whom it is a strength. In other words, life is getting pissed on from a great height repeatedly, trying not to get wet.
As though, it actually mattered how much we suffer in the open or behind closed doors, we pretend to care for others. Yet, the majorty of us have more significant tasks to devote their attention to. For instance, satisfaction at any cost.
People will say or do whatever is necessary to get what they want. To them, there is little difference between doing the right thing and ensuring their self-interests are met above everyone elses. Truth be told, I sometimes wonder, if there still is anyone who doesn’t, except for me? The world turns, people are not committing suicide en masse, so there must be plenty, right? Wrong! They are too rare…
Compassion is few and far between in this world, but we should never deny its healing potential. Its effects on the mind have the power to attribute less meaning to memories with a high impact on our presence of mind. In a way, compassion serves as a form of collective self-protection. Conversely, when we are denied it for a prolonged period of time, the want for protection is often overridden by the desire for self-destruction.
“Safety is an illusion”
On the surface, we are conditioned never to look too deep. It is the safest way to avoid painful realisations or the horrible truths about the world or ourselves. As a survival and coping mechanism, this serves to prolong life while making it more difficult for us to break our preconceptions. The deeper, we stare into ourselves, the more the question becomes “how long can we stand the pain?” In general, it depends on how resilient and resistant, we are…but our time is limited. Nobody can cope forever. Eventually, we are forced to ask ourselves, if we can continue until irreperably breaking (i.e. breaking while others watch and do nothing) or if we wish to take back control.
At the very precipes of self-destruction, we have already been destroyed in that we have already made the decision to go forward. However, such a choice is only as inevitable as our committment to do what needs to be done for the right reasons. If we believe, we are worthy of mercy, we must be the first to be benevolent to ourselves. If we are convinced, we are deserving of another chance, we must be the first to give it…Lastly, if we are down and out, then we should not hesistate to put ourselves out of our mysery by any non-violent means available to us.
When picking up the broken pieces of ourselves on the floor, we should truly contemplate how many other times, the exact same thing has happened in order to draw a conclusion. If it has happened too often, the underlying cause should be removed from the equation to guarantee success. However, if the underlying problem is a person, we cant detach from, then the process of resolution becomes a tad more ethically tainted…if we wish to persist regardless of the consequences.
In my case, when the disasterous factor is always you, then it is best to cut as many ties as possible. After all, alone is what people like us do best, simply because we have to…simply because it will never change. Some of us make it through to the bitter end, while others take the preferable options of cutting their suffering short. In all fairness, they might definitely be the lucky ones. Hell, even in the worlds worst dump with the most severe case of spiritual amensia, they are more fortunate than the rest. They need no longer be trapped in world, in which their heart is treated as though it does not exist at all. In any eventuality, who would even notice ther absence? Others impose their perception upon them and they are supposed to agree without question or hesitation. They will simply find someone else to fulfill the same role time after time, no matter the damage, they inflict. Worst thing is, more often than not, the next person will actually play along. They do this for a very simple reason: They know no different.
In our world,
The more you care,
The more vulternable you become.
On a personal note, the concept behind relationships has never been difficult for me to grasp. It is a simple matter of loyalty, respect and empathy in order to build a lasting raport. Yet, in practice, the truly real people, we meet in life are very few. They are the ones, we can turn to, when we are in depserate need of a shoulder to cry on and they’ll always be there. They are the ones, who will believe in us, when no one else can. They are the ones, who’ll take us in, when we have nowhere to go.
As may be easily ascertained, such generosity no longer exists for a small percentage of the mainstream population. After a while, it becomes simpler to just detach from the idea instead to be continuously taunted by it.
People like me are those, who sit on an empty bench by themselves and observe people passing by. We watch their interactions and keep wondering, “Is that even a possibility for me?”. Although we have learnt through many years of experience that it isnt, the thought keeps popping up. Hope refuses to perish. The notion, we may belong, cannot be banished from the mind indefinitely. As a deeply embedded part of our survival instinct, it requires extreme measures to be rid of such a notion permanently. By the time, we reach mid-adulthood, unfulilled desires such as that tend to surface far more intensely. They may create a level of inner upheaval but will disappear soon enough, before reappearing during the mid-life crisis.
In any scenario, belonging is a state of mind. To feel as though we belong can either be delusional or factual, but the feeling itself cannot be forced. For instance, if someone doesn’t feel that they belong, they cannot be made to feel more comfortable by other people overcompensating for past behaviour. It simply creates paranoia and angst.
In truth, as a species, we are beginning to lack the very qualities that define lasting relationships of any kind, from friendship to marriage. The loyal are used for their dedication. Respect is perceived as a weakness. Empathy requires more than a few seconds of thinking about another person without thinking “Me First”.
To remove yourself from the equation of life is just this easy. It is an untangling of our attachments and aversions. It is a process through which we let go completely. We do not cease to feel the relevant emotions associated with strong affinity or dislike toward something/someone, we merely cease to react to them externally as well as internally. In essence, the key is to display compassion, but never get psychologically involved or emotionally entangled.
It can be achieved without much effort, if one has very little ties to the social foundations of our modern civilisation. Off-Grid living would be ideal, of course, but few manage work and attain such a goal without solemn determination to succeed at every cost.
She’s lying in bed motionless. Her head weighs heavily on the pillow as her eyes stare into the distance. She breathes in, she breathes out…Yet she can barely feel her body anymore. Her chest rises and falls, but only she dares to look within. To her, everything feels hollow. An empty shell, obscuring a spaceless, timeless existence filled with limitless potential. There is the want to believe…the desire to trust…in the process of life, but perhaps, she never can…
With every inhale, sleep fades that much further away.
With each exhale, her mind descends into a world of total silence.
The deeper, she treads, the more control she relinquishes until there is none and merely the illusion of control remains. Inch by inch, she releases her grip on that which must never surface. She ventures ever so deep, where no one must ever go…to a cold, dark corner in the back of her mind. It neither comes nor goes, always lurking in the shadows to remind her of who she truly is inside. Night after night, she watches while layer after layer peels back…As though, her every living thought sifts through an hourglass.
With each grain, another memory passes by. Sometimes, they pull her apart with a sharp jerk at the sheer recollection of pain suppressed at the time. Always, they chip away a tiny bit more of what she used to be and she doesn’t mind in the slightest.
With each grain, she lingers in anticipation, longing for the moment before there’ll be nothing left…No more roles to play…No more to bury…No more to hide…No more of anything at all, but the freedom of absolute truth.
Her eyes fall shut slowly. She’s staring into the blackness of her eyelids. Colours fade, only darkness persists. Gradually drifting further into the distance, her breathing deepens. The ache in her side grows with each day, yet there’s no one to tell her what she doesn’t already know. The bottle awaits, but she wont heed its call. Sleeping pills whisper sweet promises of relief, but she cant swallow another.
Amidst the dying of the light, her defences fall away. She won’t go gently into the calm and restful night…but then that has never been her raison d’être. Fated to walk the Earth without a place to call home, she’ll stare at the cloudless, starry night…safe within herself… Destined to march onward.
She’ll imagine the faint ripples of their light, streaming across a vast cosmic ocean. Sometimes, she’ll contemplate why she can never leave a lasting impression of what can’t be conceived with the mind but only be felt through the heart. Seldom, she’ll wonder, if her spirit can be at peace again…and each time, as the last few grains of sand drip down the hourglass, she’ll forever plead for a soul whose love was once pure.
Imagine a world, in which self-defence is a criminal act that is punished more severely than a felony. Imagine a world, in which the life-quality of an elite minority takes precedence over the lives of an enire world population. Imagine a world, in which subjugation is of higher importance than profit…
If you can envision all of the above simultaneously, then you’ll come pretty close to seeing our world as it is, not how we would like it to be. Yet, even at the lowest point of existence, there will always be those that strive to remedy such injustices. To those who dare, this current situation is but a challenge to be solved creatively…However, when these creative solutions share the same consequences, where do we draw the legal line?
If the mere expression of our thoughts is an act punishable by law, then what will happen to our right to free speech? What will happen to our way of thinking?
Whose freedom are we protecting by remaining silent? Certainly not our own, not even the freedom of those attempting to suppress ours.
In the words of George Orwell, “if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” And he was right…but what when we have entered a world, in which expressing what we think or how we feel makes us a liability?Regardless of gender or race…that is always the case. From an early age, we are conditioned to only share what is socially accepted, but is that a way to live?
Your life is your life, it is nobody elses, So don’t allow yourself to be dominated by others. Don’t allow your actions to be dictated to by others, nor the regret you feel for having done so. It is a betrayal to yourself, which will prevent you from fulfilling you maximum potential. If you allow yourself to be dictated to by…perhaps your parents, your society, your education system, your politicians, your priests, whosoever they are…if you allow yourself to be dominated by others you will miss the best things in life. As Osho remarked, “domination comes from outside and life is within you.” The two may only meet when the external becomes non-externalised, which in turn means they cancel each other out.
There are two types of people: the obedient and the rebellious. One is a ready to take orders, retreat and/or surrender when things get tough. They have yet to discover their independent spirit. Howeve, they cannot do so until they are able to trust their own being. Unfortunately, the people make up the greater part of the world. They are the masses. The other is a small minority who reject society as well as its values. They think they are rebellious, but they primarily react to the way society dominates them. Rebellion becomes a means to gain back a modicum of control after it has been lost…unless it consists of purely selfless acts.
Whicheve type you are, follow your dream. Ask yourself ‘What do you really want to do?” But be aware you might be scared to admit what you really want to yourself. Unconsciously you may fear that you won’t be able to control your desire once you’ve admitted to it. In fact, it can cause real physical and mental illness if we continue to repress what we know deep down…it will come up eventually anyway. So, by acknowledging what we really want and pursue it, we may end up changing our current job, relationship, position in society, or whatever, but we will be
gaining the freedom to pursue what truly motivates and satisfies us. Remember that success is having a fixed goal but varying means on how to achieve it.
“If at first you don’t succeed,
Don’t try it again.
It didn’t work the first time!
Try something different!”
Changing the way you think can help you embrace a newly found freedom. If you think about life in terms of deprivation and suffering. You’ll never find enjoyment in personal growth, and most likely will soon give up on your endeavors. On the other hand, a person who thinks of life as a form of expression of their freedom will welcome opportunities to expand the consciousness of all people.
When facing temptations and fighting hard to not let them control you, remember that through letting
go of them, you aren’t losing anything substantial. You are simply taking the libery to be a master of your thoughts and emotions, which is ultimately worth more than any temporary gratification, of which you’re depriving yourself.
When your heart weighs heavily on your spirit, what do you do? For the most part, we are driven reach out. To express our problems in order to seek a solution…but what if we cant?
What when safety reveals itself to be the illusion, which it always has been, how are we supposed feel? At first, we may deny the truth to react with anger. Upon acceptance, it is normal to spiral out of control a little bit, but eventually we begin to realise, there is a freedom in uncertainty.
Anxiety has become a major topic in our modern world. We may even be so anxious, we feel depressed when we are not, simply waiting for the next wave of extreme emotion to paralyse us. At present, anxiety disorders are recognised, but it wasn’t always this way. My generation was conditioned to dismiss fear and confront it head on. We were pushed, bullied and beaten out of allowing fear to hold us back. For some it worked, for others not so much…
Regardless in what way others encourage us to shed our fears, we can only let go of them ourselves. The same applies to our insecurities.
As imperfect as life may be, it is all we have. Again and again…so we cling to that which makes us feel secure, as temporary it might be. Until one big event shatters those illusions, too many remain trapped in unhappy circumstances. They can’t find a way out of them, since they feel escape will make them more vulnerable…which it often does when no support network exists. Though “just” a small number of these cases resort to desperate options, the number is rising every day.
For what it is worth, nobody should settle for a life of unhappiness, no matter how scary it can seem to leave the present situation.
You are worth more than that!
Safety is perhaps the second most persistent illusion, apart from space-time. It lulls us into a sense of trust in the process of life, which is currently being manipulated by approx. 1% of the global population for their own gain…to establish their own safe space.
People like me, and perhaps even like you, don’t have safe spaces. Trust doesn’t work out, but we don’t stop taking a chance. It is a cycle of pain that grinds us down until we find a reason to try again. However, giving up eventually because we perpetuate this cycle by trusting the same personality types is far more likely. Miracles do happen though.
I am perhaps not the most qualified to ask you to trust in people or believe that things can change. They never have for me, and they probably never will…but I refuse to quit. The fight against our worst insticts is never done. We simply need to continue to the end of this life, and similar problems will emerge in the next…in perhaps a brave new world, we never thought was possible. That, in fact, would not be possible without our perseverance.
Where we feel secure has much to do with when. A feeling of safety can be associated with when we visit a particular place, person or do a specific thing…But those things change. Places are turned to dust. People either leave or die. The joy once gotten from doing a certain thing can vanish, if we get depressed enough. So, what should we do, when nothing works anymore?
In essence, we must never give up on ourselves. Life is a conundrum of esoterica. It is so much more mysterious than we could ever imagine. It is filled with so much more unexpected kindness or compassion than we assume so readily. However, we can never discover any of this, if we don’t take the bad with the good.
There are moments, when it seems impossible to go on, but we must. When we need to wipe away our tears and pretend to be just fine…regardless of what happened. Yet, we can only find the strength to do this so many times without confronting the undelying issue. Eventually, if we don’t, we will self-destruct or do something we might sincerely regret. Although there can be no such thing as a safe space in the outside world, we can attain a state of being, in which we feel safe within ourselves… This is far from easy. It wont work in every possible circumstance, bu it is only method that can soften even the hardest blows.
Externalising Fear: As grown-ups, we might still use defense mechanisms we developed as children. Instead of making us feel safe as adults, our behavior causes us to feel unsafe. Instead of facing the situation head on, which we can’t do because we have no idea how to take responsibility for our own safety, we focus our fears on something else. For example, the abused child worries about pleasing their parents or the beaten wife worries about the academic performance of her kids. In shifting our attention elsewhwere, we distract ourselves from what we are going through. More importantly, what we are unconsciously doing to ourselves. After all, we cannot stay true to ourselves, if we abandon our own well-being for the sake of someone elses.
Suppressing Fear: For men, it is fairly common to learn at an early age to bury their emotions. Few cultures encourage young boys to process what they feel…Instead, they learn by the example that getting angry because they deny their emotions is a socially approved way to deal with their mental state.
How to cope:
Chögyam Trungpa once said
“…rather than being disheartened by the ambiguity, the uncertainty of life, what if we accepted it and relaxed into it? What if we said, ‘Yes, this is the way it is. This is what it means to be human, and decided to sit down and enjoy the ride?”
We feel unsafe, because we are designed to expect safety. Our insecurities just reinforce this feeling… From childhood onwards, we begin to feel unsafe within ourselves, so we developed coping mechanisms to deal with the world and our perceived self. We may act out of fear and anger instead of courage and love. We might even find reasons to be hurt by others no matter how nice they are…
Whatever we do, we must learn to be present in the moment and let go of the past in order to embrace the unknown. As hard as it may sound, all of our experiences have made us who we are. The good and the bad. Without them, we could not be who we are now…so we must find ways to be grateful for them. Even if it simply means to acknowledge the strength we have found to overcome the insurmountable.
Accept yourself for the wondrous, amazing self that you have become, because…you are astonishing just the way you are.
The lessons, we learn in life, represent deep realisations that can only come from adversity. In the processes of creation, preservation and destruction, the nature of the cosmos is inherently violent. Therefore, our knowledge is gained from our sweat, tears and pain. It is not effortlessly attained, but it is completely free from materialistic constraints, such as money or conflict.
It can only be found within, since it emerges from the deepest part of ourselves. The part, who knows when our choices involve the lives of others, that they have physical consequences for this person, including everyone associated with. But, they also have moral consequences that do not abide by our sensitivities, quite the opposite. We may think our actions are selfless, but when we take the liberty to decide for another or speak on their behalf, then we are taking the most precious thing they have…Their freedom.
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.
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.
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.
Have you ever spent day by day, wondering why? The answer has been explained in depth inside other posts…Self-Realisation. The experience of cosmic oneness that absorbs the experiencer and the experienced into itself.
Beyond that, what the fuck are we doing?
I dont know about you but I…well…I am perhaps the worst excuse of a human being. After so many years of doing what was expected, I ventured out on my own at the ripe age of 14…still conditioned to do what is necessary to survive in a hostile environment. Friendship was never a concept that was in the cards for me, neither were healthy relationships. After years of abuse, my stench of desperation pretty much drove everyone away.
Recently, I’ve felt a sense of hope, which reawakened dreams that perished long ago. Perhaps, things can change for the better after all. Perhaps, I’m just another anti-feminist, seeking true partnership instead oneupmanship…No matter what I am, I choose to live my life speaking my mind freely.
For this reason, I am sharing something deeply personal with you. It goes beyond the spiritual concepts, we strive for but can never make a utopian reality. We, as people, have strayed so far from our path…Social segregation has driven us to the brink of insanity followed by imminent genocide. When to know this is going on in the world means to be politically incorrect, what happens to the truth? It becomes the first casualty of a world war that is inbound.
I could never wrap my head around the sense behind it all. By the age of 15, I had lost everything. My home. My family. Any possible support network I could have had to process these losses with assistance…As time kept passing by the second, I felt as though the ground had shattered under my feet. Safety revealed itself to be an illusion maintained by the tallest thug in the room with the fighting experience to back his play and control the crowd.
For what it’s worth, I did not desist. I worked hard, read every book under the sun and began my journey into adulthood with little success. At a young age, I already took responsibility for people two or three times my age…and after nearly 15 years, several questions arose. Will it always be this way? Will anyone ever take care of me? Why am I still here, when I’m just living on borrowed time?
After I had been raped the first time, I told no one. Still haven’t. The responses from those I spoke to about an attempted rape at 14 were lacking more than merely compassion…so I learnt to keep stumm. Before that incident, I thought it could not get any worse. I had suffered the unspeakable at the hands of fanily, friends and strangers to the point I ceased to trust…However, when I least expected it, I fell in love. Someone had made the effort to convey over several hours of conversation that I could do anything with my life. I could aim for the stars. He’d given me hope, as I was about to give up. Initially, as things headed into a romantic direction, I fell back on my original conditioning…to please at any cost…but then he got me to trust him after a couple of years. Everything was looking up for the first time in over 6 years…until one night, when he returned home drunk out of his mind. After the second time by another person, it seemed less painful…less important. I wanted to tell, but I was numb. When intimacy was demanded from me, I would reciprocate…pretending to enjoy whatever the fuck was wanted with a smile. Personally, I thought that would never change.
The want for the pain to end is the primary cause behind all suicide. Nobody wants to die, but death is preferable over suffering. How do I know? During a dark night at 14, my mother had gone to bed. Again, I could not sleep. At that time, I had become accustomed to crying myself to sleep after extreme arguments that would last hours every day and would sometimes end in violence. I never hit back. I couldn’t, so I began to self-harm. In the end, it was a cycle of hurting myself for being hurt…until I tried to run away twice. When that didn’t work, I hoarded enough pills or what I thought was enough. After 10 years in the medical industry, I know better now, but then, I just couldn’t wait any longer. I was so desperate for the pain to end, I took the chance without a backup solution. Statistically, the more lethal the means of suicide, the more successful they are.
For what it is worth, I am fortunate it did not succeed. I was lucky to survive to process what drove me to such measures. Moreover, I survived worse after without resorting to further attempts.
Life is a whirlwind of experience. I would not wish for it to be any other way. Without the bad days, how could there be the good? We must never give up on ourselves or others. It is our solemn duty to squeeze the most out of life, just not at the expense of others. Be kind to those who’ve known to little kindness. Be bold to those who overstep their mark at the expense of others…and love unconditionally for the fucking hell of it.
Prior to 1779, the term referred to a state of being, in which we develop a penchant for a specific type of thing. Before that year, addiction was perceived more as a habit than a physiological condition. However, we realise today, there is very little difference. When it comes down to consciousness engineering, we can become dependent on almost anything. After this point of human development, we began to add to our understanding of how simple substance abuse can lead to severe health complications, especially for those who mix and match. Naturally there are those, who are more susceptible than others, but nothing is unbeatable.
Bottling up trauma may lead to inadequate coping strategies that are often perpetuated in adult life.
When we ask ourselves, what if I will never be able to stop? What if I don’t want to stop? What if there are days that I do and days that I don’t? What if those around me don’t support me as much as they enable me or themselves?
It all depends on the choice of poison but the symptoms of behavioural conditioning are universal. When we are deprived of something that we depend on, then we may experience a painful transition until we have overcome our dependency issues. Still, in actuality, everything shapes our consciousness. Even the smallest things can alter the way we think, speak and act. In fact, they have to for us to evolve, but they also further our devolution.
To maintain control constantly means to never be able to let down our guard. It means to avoid any and all mind-altering things in the multiverse, which is an impossibility. But, where do we draw the line? When does indulgence become dependency? We may distinguish right or wrong through the rule of law, although we know it’s not that simple. Nothing in life ever is…
When we contemplate the use of any mind-altering substance [ranging from pharmaceuticals, cannabis to alcohol], there is an underlying reason. Pain relief, for example, on a psychological as well as physical level. As a rule, the kind of substances we can access easily determines how lethal self-medicating is our society is. When over the counter medication or supplements have a higher dosage of certain compounds than medically advised, their destructive nature makes them more than an easy sale.
Anything can be addictive. In all fairness, everything that we cannot live without fosters a state of dependency. It creates a state of being, in which our lives revolve around habits, we cannot break. It seems important at the time, even if we know it will destroy us.
Many of us wake up in the morning and start their day with a drink to keep the hangover at bay or a cigarette to satisfy their bodies nicotine cravings. I’m not one to talk, but I know what it’s like and it doesn’t end well.
“Certain processes which should be regarded as the abnormal functions of the individuals psychology now commence with the rise of the desire for material possessions [wealth and property] the desire for sexual contact and the sense of self-respect which materialises into the desire of self-glorification and the exercise of power over those outside oneself, which all come step by step, in succession. Here, the entanglement of consciousness is complete, and this is what is known as Samsara, or the painful earthly life. It is unfortunate that the mind of man does not rest even with this self-degeneration and, by process of time, getting itself accustomed to this condition, as if it is its natural state, forms its philosophy of ‘it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven’. The result of this is the formulation of erroneous philosophies such as materialism, scepticism, agnosticism, pluralism, formalism, such as we find in the addiction to mere ritual, as well as the several arts and sciences which man regards as his highest achievements today but which are intended only to rationalise and perpetuate the condition of entanglement of consciousness with objects of various kinds, into which is has already descended. Even the so-called impersonal sciences of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and empirical psychology appear to be valid only so long as nature is regarded as external consciousness. A philosophy based on this bifurcation of experience cannot therefore save consciousness from the pains it suffers in entanglement.”
– Swami Krishnananda
The mind seeks to interpret the universe through the senses. However, there is a distinction to be made between relative existence and reality. In its absolute state, reality is self-sustaining…It cannot be interpreted through anything within the confines of our multiverse, only that which gave rise to them. So where does it end? Prior to time and space…in a timeless, spaceless void, where all is one.
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,
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.
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.
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.
“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…
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:  those responsible hide in wait to attack the repair-crew, then attack the police and expand the No-Zone to that point.  law enforcement anticipates an attack but does not have enough manpower to keep the area from becoming a No-Go Zone.  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…
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:
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  processed, containing toxic additives and preservatives, which further reduce the fertility rate when least needed.  canned, exposing people to excess heavy metal and BPA for prolonged periods known to cause disease.  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.
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…
Twenty years ago a group of Detroit anarchists began work on a new synthesis of environmental and anti-authoritarian thought. Distinguishing themselves from other burgeoning ecological movements in the eighties anarchopunk scene they sought to draw inspiration directly from our primitive roots. Anarchy, they declared, should not be considered in terms of an abstract state to be politically won, but rather a living experience and extensive historical reality. Reevaluating the ideologies and dogma of the classic anarchist movement they turned attention to the archaeological record and existing indigenous societies. By building on post-left critiques they passionately worked to bring attention to a much wider context and history of mental, social and physical expressions of totalitarianism. And finally, taking a stunningly broad stance that framed humanity’s neolithic embrace of mass society in terms of the mythological Fall from Eden, the movement chose to target as a single whole both the virulent social hierarchies that accompanied the onset of agrarianism and the entirety of technological development since.
The radical core of a vast green anarchist awakening, anarcho-primitivism blossomed across the North American anti-authoritarian community and then beyond.
High-profile operations such as Earth First’s creation of the Cascadia Free State to block old-growth logging built an international momentum around green anarchy. At the same time intellectuals like John Zerzan gained public exposure in defense and support of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s anti-civilization politics. In the Seattle riots against the WTO primitivist group from Eugene stole the media spotlight. Today various bundlings of green anarchist thought have become diffuse and deeply integral in the broader anarchist movement and, despite some dramatically turning tides, primitivism still enjoys a significant influence.
Naturally this has provoked sizable criticism.
Within the traditionally socialist and unabashedly leftist veins writers such as Michael Albert and Murray Bookchin have been repulsed at the movement’s radical rejection of everyday basic technology and universally accepted constructs like language itself. And on the ground many activists deride a lack of engagement with or sympathy and awareness of social realities. Furthermore, identity issues and accusations of irrelevancy have plagued the mainly economically-privileged white anglophone movement.
Despite this, or perhaps because of these critiques and their limited nature, the primitivist discourse has continued seeping out to wider audiences beyond anarchism through things like the growing infatuation of liberal conspiracy types with peak oil and Derrick Jensen’s popularization of ecological struggle.
Serious intellectual resistance, where it has come, has been less theoretically inspired than socially motivated. For many radicals the most tangible effects of primitivism have been cultural. Predictions of an inevitable and permanent crash of civilization have sapped the perceived need for revolutionary action and differing degrees of survivalist elitism have mixed with already rampant shallow and self-preoccupied competitive moralisms to the effect of even greater disconnect. A sort of DIY green capitalism has been recreated by certain radical circles in which presumably if you collect enough survival skills tokens you get to retire to your very own plush post-collapse bungalow with a panoramic view of everyone you ever had drama with dying.
This is obviously all very concerning. But, as with any political philosophy or revolutionary paradigm, the demographics and particular social consequences are far less important than what primitivism actually has to say. Neither extremism nor radicalism are ever reasons for rejection unto themselves, nor are even impracticality or a fumbled enactment – whatever tactics might be concluded from an assertion, if the underlying idea is inviolate, the consequence of it should not blind us to that reality.
The actual argument behind anarcho-primitivism is fierce. It is intelligent and complex, yet beautifully simple at root… And it is ultimately wrong.
In giving flesh to these fifteen theses I seek not to call out the radical green movement wholesale. Nor do I mean to limit myself to some official orthodoxy of primitivism proper. Rather I mean to address several core and recurring strands of thought in primitivism today and the deep failings that have come to define it as a whole.
Biological concepts & Distinctions aren’t Particularly fundamental
It’s no secret we, as a society, have a bad case of cosmology-through-taxonomy. The industrial revolution in particular saw an explosion of categorization and demarcation between abstractions. From animal/vegetable/mineral we got sub-parthenons. phylas, compounds, infraclasses and a host of other cognitive divisions. It was a profound and expansive campaign of centralization and itemization and, like all others, it was mostly about control.
Just as has been true since the very first person mucked around with language: naming is power.
It was not enough to build a massive physical infrastructure by which to apply social hierarchies. Humanity itself had to be broken down and controlled. The greatest tools of coercion and control that had ever been available—the needs and frailties of our own bodies—were to be so thoroughly itemized as give charge to the second greatest tool of coercion and control: a religion.
Biology over-asserted its association with hard sciences like chemistry and physics and brought that unearned legitimacy to bear in the social realm. Even as forests were clearcut and species exterminated, Europe’s expanding ecosystem of social hierarchy launched a barrage of taxonomic declarations to convince the people that it best understood their interactions, place and role within the world. We may not understand the processes killing you, but we can pick its name off a chart.
Though it gave no true strength, such taxonomic knowledge provided a numbing security. A sense of personal control over the world through the ingestion of structure.
The synthesis of this pursuit of taxonomy with the valuation of position and power can of course be seen in the constructions applied to race and sex. And “Social Darwinism” justified social stratification more broadly by applying emerging biological concepts as fully descriptive and absolute laws of nature in realms they had no business in describing.
The general assurance provided by taxonomy spurred an overreach that still deeply affects our discourse. Mainstream notions of ethics—long corrupted by the church to remove any foundation save appeals to authority— reacted to the increasing potency of biological explanations by simply swapping authorities. Nature was swapped in to fill the place of god. And the fulfillment of one’s role set out for them by nature was positioned as the moral good. Homosexuality, for example, gets attacked for being “unnatural” more often than “unholy.”
The early field of biology, as it was appealed to and applied in the social realm, excelled in layered complex arcana, rituals and miracles. What it needed was a touch of divinity, something that could be personally mystified until it swallowed up all existential questions. And then it would be possible to draw lines and slice up whatever was left on the metaphysical level. Thus the arbitrary category of “living” was canonized as an absolute on par with the charge of an electron, even though abstractions like “self-replicating system” were obviously subjective as all hell. We saw patterns that could be easily and pragmatically described and pretended they were prefect and fundamental descriptions. So the chemically subjective impression of “life” is declared to begin at conception, et cetera, et cetera.
The churches bought in real fast.
Yet if self-replication is somehow an entropy-breaking signature of a divinely separate force, what of the stars? They grow, collapse and, in doing so, seed their own re-growth among the nebulae. Every piece of matter around us is part of that cycle. Likewise, a mystification of the information patterns of DNA breaks down in the form of RNA and quasi-nucleaic-acid carriers on the frayed edge of what’s a complex molecule and what was declared easily recognizable by a lab technician. What counts as the “sameness” between one cell and another?Why not include the sublimation of minerals?
It can seem an inane difficulty, but these notions come to bear again and again in our political and ecological discourse in ways that can be deeply problematic, yet are rarely called out.
One tradition of primitivist thought appeals strongly to the notion of “complexity”, something well defined in say computer science (where the arbitrary abstractions we choose automatically have real meaning), but not so clear-cut in the realm of cultures and biomes. You get authors like Jason Godesky arguing points that depend on humo sapiens being more “complex” than dinosaurs and dinosaurs more complex than say coral reefs. But for what definition of “complex”? We judge complexity based on how many “parts” we see in a system, but what exactly constitutes a part is itself hugely subjective on anything other than fundamental particles. We chose to talk and think in terms of particular abstracts agglomerates based on how useful such schemes are for us, not because things become suddenly magically more than the sum of their parts at say the cellular level. If dinosaurs are considered “less complex” than primates it’s because we have more intricate naming systems for physical and behavioral details closer to our own experience. But from another perspective a coral reef can be seen as far, far more complex than a human being.
My point is that significant abstraction based in such taxonomies can end up worse than useless. While on a some levels—in the pragmatic service of some goals—they can be useful, we need to remain explicit about those constraints. There can be just as much, say, fundamental “diversity” between a given spotted owl & lemur as between two lemurs. Narrowly focused on similarities between patterns of DNA or macroscopic physical trends in physiology, our concept of “diversity” might even be applicable in the way we want it to be. But it won’t necessarily get us beyond the assumptions, the working parameters, and the social hierarchies a given taxonomic framework is couched in. It’s all too easy to slide into making too much out of false dichotomies between ‘living’ and non-’living’ systems or ‘natural’ and non-’natural’ arrangements.
While pragmatic on certain levels of discussion, abstractions of any deep ethical, ontological or existential significance that are predicated on Biology’s conceptual distinctions are likely to be deeply problematic. Instead of copping out with loose and ultimately arbitrary abstractions, it behooves us to think in terms of the exact particulars and only speak of systemic distinctions that are grounded in objective fundamentals.
The biosphere is not inherently good, just highly dynamic
Between the solar wind and its molten iron core, the Earth has a thin layer of water and nitrogen. Around 3.5 billion years ago, after the planet finished aggregating, this layer of fluid locked into a sort of homeostasis around the solid mantel. The various elements caught up in this turbulent process were forced into far closer interaction than they’d seen as dust between the stars. Due to the nature of the planetary formation much of the surface experienced large and decidedly uneven outbursts of energy. Unusually extended molecules were formed and destroyed as fundamental particles followed entropy to lower energy states all while pressed up against uncountable trillions of their fellows.
Eventually the most violent energy outbursts died down and the resulting elemental muck settled into more efficient and locally sustainable patterns of relational structure. The free-floating O2 molecule became a quite popular pattern of arrangement as erosive molecular aggregates liberated it from the surface’s iron rocks. Another popular arrangement that stood the test of all those trillions of interacting particles and molecules was the amino acid. Of course, this was a far broader generalization of inter-atomic structure and, unlike the simplistic O2, its existence depended on a much higher degree of interaction with the surrounding muck. Such increased interaction, in fact, that, as entropy played out the Earth’s ocean/atmosphere, it emerged primarily in close conjunction with much larger agglomerations of closely interdependent molecules. In the background of all this an almost unnoticeable mass of sugars rolled themselves out and transmitted structural information to their surrounding proteins. The planet cooled and these sluggish uber-massive molecular arrangements gained ground against the more fiery radical arrangements of yester-eon. Today about two trillion tons of matter on the surface of the earth is intimately associated with these deoxyribonucleic acids. And the sum total of these fluidly interrelating positional structures of matter is today referred to as the Biosphere.
There are many cosmically descriptive attributes that could be applied to this planet’s scummy outer film, but the most important is by far its dynamicism.
Neither an expansive vacuum of distant, weak and slow interactions nor a positionally locked, brittle over-structure, the biosphere is characterized by relatively in fluid change. That is to say interacting forces play out with significantly sped up changes in relative positions. Of course that’s not to ascribe to it the properties of some perfectly dynamic super-fluid.
Rather, the Earth is simply dynamic enough to buffer the emergence and mobile propagation of rough, low-density information structures. Like us.
Our biosphere is organized in stratified layers of fluidity. From particles to molecules to cells to organisms. Given any arbitrarily limited system and the intention to convey information in the form of spatial relations able to withstand externalities, some fluid behavior is crucial. Those arrangements which survive and flourish in such dynamic systems do so though grassroots propagation. And the resulting landscapes are characterized by redundancy. By coalescing into autonomous actors they achieve a sort of distributed adaptability that morph around blunt obstacles and seep into their surroundings.
Compared to a rock, a puddle of water is very dynamic. A maple tree’s probably going to be a whole lot less dynamic than the puddle of water. But the rock’s not going to do much at all. The information structure contained within the arrangement of its particles isn’t really going to apply itself to the surrounding world as be applied upon.
The rock, of course, can store quite a bit of positional information. These days we, as a society, spend quite a lot of time saving porn and MP3s to rocks. Because, it’s worth pointing out, the structures in the rock generally don’t spontaneously flow apart. At the same time, however, such brittle frozen structures are incredibly unstable in the face applied contact and motion. But that’s okay because though dynamic systems erode entrenched structure, there are still ways to convey and apply positional information.
The maple tree’s DNA, for example, in proportion to its total resulting weight, may not pack away an impressive number of gigs per cubic inch. But it preserves and applies such informational structures in such a way that an ipod, abandoned on mountainside, would be hard pressed to match.
Through dynamic engagement with environmental complexities, structure can be rooted with more survivability and consequence than a less dynamic one would find. The structure of a hunk of concrete is not very dynamic, and a brittle hunk of concrete embedded in a far more dynamic system will not last very long.
The positional structure of say, concrete overpasses, doesn’t have as strong a history of dynamic participation in the Earth’s scummy outer film as say, humanity. And, as the human body is an emergent structure highly interconnected and participant within a rather dynamic system, our own structures are somewhat colossally interdependent with all the other watery stuff whirling around us.
From our vantage point as homo sapiens, the Earth’s dynamic system usually looks great! But let’s remember that there are no huge metaphysical engines driving the whole thing just to sustain the crude information structure of ‘humanishly’ arranged deoxyribonucleic acids bumping about in scummy water sacks. The Earth wasn’t made for human bodies. Human bodies were made for the Earth.
And all that means is that our template survived two million years of stabbing rabbits to death and picking strawberries. It does not mean that going back to stabbing and strawberries would still cut it for us in another thousand years (even if we had never taken up our new dastardly practice of planting carrots and wheeling around carts). Who knows? Fact of the matter is some dynamic turbulence in the Biosphere could spontaneously wipe us out any day. Following our original position within the greater biosphere (even with some mild evolution) guarantees nothing. It is simply an informed shot in the dark. Good chances but a rather hands off abandonment to fate.
Yet, at the same time, it should be so obvious as to go without saying that suddenly slapping concrete over 1/10th of the Earth’s surface will almost certainly effect a non-human-friendly result. No matter how many of your summer homes you make out of cob.
Humans can choose our dynamics
We exist immersed within a dynamic system and remain deeply dependent on its conditions. At the same time there’s no denying that we can affect both our local conditions and the system as a whole.
On the face of it, this appears to present us with the two extremes: We can strive to interact with our external environment in as close to the same manner as worked twenty thousand years ago. Or we can seek different ways of engaging with it.
To the degree that we choose the first, we throw up our hands at the thought of out thinking millions of years of evolution. Uncountable trillions of calculations were involved in the formation of our bodies and ecology. Granted, the Earth isn’t finished processing through all the fluid interactions of its scummy crust—and when it is, there will be nothing left—but, in the short term, it’s certainly amenable to assume that enough of the overarching patterns of equilibrium involved in our upkeep will be maintained for a few dozen more millennia. …Provided we continue to participate in roughly the same manner.
The second option, deviation, is, at least evolutionarily, a great tactic. But the most efficient processes of evolution take steps inversely proportional to the evolving structure’s size. The greater the trial, the greater the error. Large scale structures have more net components involved and thus more points of interaction with the external dynamic system. A single misstep has larger consequences.
The best way to sneak around this dangerous process of physical trial and error is conceptual modeling. We can think through possible changes to way we interact with the world. We simplify perceptions into cognitive structures and then allow them to evolve against one another in our minds. The resulting successful structures we then translate back into external form.
This is technology.
It’s the process of how we choose to arrange our interactions with the material world. Loose every day associations of bulldozers and computers aside, this is pretty all that the word “technology” means.
Problem is, the greater the abstraction involved the greater the imperfection. Symbolic representations diverge from material behavior as, by nature of their comparative simplicity, they cannot calculate every interaction in a fluid system. “Chaotic” behavior thus emerges as a phantom remainder, left behind to torment the carefully calculated and brittle structures we so proudly abstracted.
It’s one thing when it results in a snapped vine rope, it’s quite another when the structure at hand coats the entire Earth. But, regardless of degree, in every technological channel we might use to interact with the material world, whether it be through our traditional biological bodies, adopted behavioral patterns, symbolic logic, mechanical tools, or agglomerate ecosystem, our ultimate choice is between fluidly integrated structures and clunky or tractionless structures.
This is the greater truth. Our choices are ultimately a matter of dynamics. Rather than a choice between two sets of patterns, “technology” and “non-technology,” every manner of interaction with the world is a kind of technology. What matters is their efficiency in providing the most fluid contact with the world.
Role-filling is an ethical abdication
We do not consider “I was just following orders” to ever be a good excuse or moral justification. Neither is, “I was just following my role in nature.”
Though of course it’s ludicrous to imagine our ecosystem personally issuing commands to Nazi stormtroopers, the basic issue of abdicating personal spirit and responsibility to external authority is the same.
Outsourcing our lives into the control of external systems is a surprisingly accepted practice in our society and whole swathes of people have come to believe that in doing so we can escape the energy of vigilance and self-animation. So vast is the acceptance, that there’s a general sense that actions committed while self-placed under some external authority are, in some manner, of less personal responsibility than would be otherwise true. As if the choice to abdicate choice could ever be less egregious. Whenever we accept a form of external authority, we chew away at the personal processes of thinking and living in a sort of selective internal suicide. But rarely does it stay internal. And what once might have been abstract and largely benign, if still a centrally accepted personal axiom, begins to noticeably seep out into our actions and intentions.
It’s no secret that our most glamorous hierarchies and evils are assisted, if not entirely held up, by such abdications.
Some of the most instantly recognizable and specific cases of role-filling passed as morality come from the Christian church. From semi-broad conceptions of manners of personal position within a larger system as moral goods, to actual behavioral code pounded into rocks, such conceptions of external morality have been adopted and fleshed out by many sincere people striving independently. …And, of course, inexorably lead to empowered hierarchies and the justification of outright law.
In contrast, the extreme back-to-basics of ecological role-filling do not directly lay down the specifics of some universal moral code, nor do they posit precise moment-to-moment structures of action. What is done instead is far more insidious, it embraces a generalized sense of external authority. The broad presupposition that we have a place within a larger system, and that our following of that externally defined role is a moral good.
In short, that the external world should rule us.
The fact that these external notions are more material than social is an important detail, but does not change the underlying movement towards abrogation of personal spirit and responsibility. (And the mediation of material structures into guidelines for one’s personal intent and action often comes through social instruments.)
By supporting chains of governance in the abstract, such ecological role-filling ultimately throws away agency in self-definition and self-determination …even though it may not have yet settled on particular rigid structures of personal participation.
The inescapable problem is that after embedding oneself in external causal sequences one cannot be assured of any moral force remaining in them much less being inherent. Reframing and constructing one’s life according to say ecological equations or drug-induced instructions from an owl-spirit, though superficially different in structural source, are identical in nature. They can justify anything.
And over many iterations, though such external forces may have been first broadly interpreted so as to produce anti-authoritarian behavior, without an internally emergent motivation, they will justify anything.
The rejection of civilization and technology in favor of ecological role-filling, on the face of it, can’t help but appear socially conservative. Still, most if not the overwhelming majority of primitivists have imported enlightenments from progressive movements of deconstruction, seeking to meld anarchist branches of queer theory within the critique of civilization. Despite anarcho-primitivism’s macho appearance and reputation within the community, progressive perspectives and deconstruction of sexuality are widely embedded with the banner of green anarchy and some of the most energetic advances and popularizations of anarchism’s interpersonal insights have come via green anarchist ventures. (Nothing makes folks face gender roles like a winter in the forest together.) But, while there’s been some dancing around biological role-filling in regards to gender, one universal line been drawn, as it is inescapable from the most basic premise of anti-technology: However much primitivism’s role-filling might be stretched to embrace the variance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and even some limited queer identities, trans folk are right out.
Because one’s biological body is a component of one’s role in the greater system that can’t truly be changed without technology. The greater alteration of one’s body’s dynamics, the more dynamic (and from our point of view complex) the applied technology must be. This occasion of an anti-civilization interpretation of the environment’s orders is but one sharp and early consequence of primitivism’s broader-embrace of role-filling. Even worse ones are certain to come.
As primitivism turns outward for direction from (interpretations of) ecological systems, the divergence between their resulting codes of action and our common feeling of a moral world will deepen. And one can only begin to imagine the depth to the insidious changes capable of spreading after a crash. When the touch of role-filling becomes more immediate. The embrace of one’s position within a system internalizes and emphasizes one’s connections to the system until the core person is subsumed and replaced by them.
Individuals flourish with increases to their dynamic connections
When our relationships to external material structures become poorly integrated, brittle and characterized by rigid control we become imprisoned.
A starving child, trapped alone, say, on a seemingly endless expanse of clay left by sudden drought, is obviously overwhelmed and overpowered by the change of integration with environment. We can even imagine such a doomed child perhaps only finding extended survival by listlessly licking up mud for nutrients. Not exactly a free mode of life, most would agree. And so too is the villager who simply follows the same processes in life endlessly with no real deviation or exploration—even in times of plenty when such chores are unneeded—pretty far from a liberated life. Furthermore, such internalized repetition of behavior might prove more than unnecessary, and, in fact, destructive to the whole community’s relation with their surroundings.
On the flip side, it’s clear that fluid contact with our environment helps us positively spread and grow. At heart, we like to touch. We like to see, feel and know our world. We like to reach out and explore.
That’s not to say that locking ourselves out of the world can’t be useful in situations of oppressive tactile structures. When our environment strays into systems of behavior we can’t integrate with, limited strength and intensity of contact is often a positive survival method.
We might flee a hurricane for a concrete bunker or, when struggling through a winter, slow our bodies down in degrees of hibernation. The villager who mechanizes repetition of the same task in order to survive a bad period withdraws from sensory engagement in a similar manner.
But again with the mechanized villager we see how locking ourselves away can sometimes provide its own powerful form of role-filling. The classic caricature of a suburban businessman might come to mind, someone who locks himself away behind sterile, contact depriving doors, striving progressively to do away with any manner of fluid interaction. replacing contact’1 and engagement with air conditioned SUVs and neatly packaged television shows.
There are stronger and weaker degrees (and of course forms or directions) of such contact possible with the world. Certain examples are obvious. The hunter who embraces the wilderness and, though more fluidly integrated sensation, feels interactions spreading out from the brushed fern to the owl fluttering off in the distance. The same villager considered before, who just washes clothes in the river and doesn’t stray much beyond the functioning of established processes, has internalized a greater barrier to contact, interaction, connection, and integration with the external environment. And, of course, the much lamented World of Warcraft addict, isolated in dark room, may perhaps enjoy great social contact but still little more than faint stimuli in matters of physical reality.
It’s no coincidence that the examples given are characterized by decreasingly dynamic connections as the ostensible trappings of civilization are more pronounced. Modern civilization has acquired layers of structural blanketing that encompasses and confines our everyday lives. In every conceivable realm we have taken to throwing down fences and slinking into set patterns and channels of behavior. We still interact with the world, but the dynamics are greatly confined.
How often do we sit quietly and feel the trees move? How often do we pay attention to what exactly is in the room with us, rather than reducing our reality into crudely simplified concepts of functional relationship? How often do we touch the world rather than ignoring or itemizing it? When was the last time you turned your head up and actually looked at the stars?
No wonder our minds and bodies rot today, we function within set patterns because they can be useful. But we only truly flourish with deeper contact. It’s no secret that such brittle structures and role-filling are unstable and corrosive, but in the other direction, when we approach our connections dynamically we can spread channels of stronger, more fluidic and organic tactile contact.
There is no fundamental limit to this contact.
Certain local realities provide a bunch of pragmatic limitations, but they can be worked around. In much the same way that the hunter can feel the dancing wind patterns far stronger than his skin or the rustling foliage might otherwise reveal by choosing to throw up some downy feathers and watch their interaction with the twisting air currents. Or a apple-gatherer use stilts to stride between tree branches. Or an ancient lens crafter build a telescope. Or a geneticist hack the human genome to give his skin stronger light-awareness.
We want stronger and more versatile contact, and thus we’ve built technology.
Rather than from a drive to rigidly control and master, technology has always been, at root, formed by the desire for greater dynamic contact. Not the divorced-from-the-world laziness that sometimes emerges from later abdications once the tools have been acquired. But from the desire to touch, feel and explore. Because the primal creation involved is necessarily rooted in an act of ingenuity and imagination.
The systems engineer who designs and builds a bridge across a ravine with her own hands applies herself in a deeply connected fashion. The world is felt and worked with smoothly. Rock is shifted. A new channel of contact becomes stronger. It’s easier to move from place to place. To engage with a wider swath of the world.
The onset of our hierarchical methods of industry, though they facilitated greater and greater power and exploitation, partially stem from the human desire for deeper and more dynamic contact with the world. We don’t like being confined. Or that is to say, we rot when limited or relegated to some removed subspace. We flourish with the intensity and immediacy of our more dynamic connections to the world.
Moving beyond the same socially perpetuated processes of behavior, we strive to understand and deepen our relationship, our interaction with the seeds and bushes we gather from. We try for greater contact, attempt a more fluid integration. And so we help plant the berry bushes we need closer to us…
Symbolic structures can facilitate greater fluidity. So long as they, themselves, are treated fluidly. The moment they become rigid, when we remove or replace ourselves with mechanization, our interactions with the world grow rigid and brittle.
Understanding is not dependent on process but capacity to experience
We live in a watery world. Every particle interacts with everything else. The patterns of “structure” that emerge from this turbulent fluid do so in a (relatively) constantly shifting, redundant, and interdependent way. Organic, you might say.
The intensity of interaction–more specifically the high degree of and constant change of relative position internally–found in systems defined by a distribution of particles is the basic premise for the generation of information structures within the system. In the seminal “game of life” demonstrations programmers seeded low level algorithms in a complex environment and turned up the intensity of the environment’s internal interactions. The consequence was “spontaneously” “generated” more “complex” or “diverse” informational “structures.” A whole “complex” ecosystem of interacting informational systems.
But of course we should examine these terms critically. “Complex” can be something of a misnomer given its modern connotations of rigidity sometimes plain unnaturalness (think of the thick owner’s manual to a car or a vast board of circuits). Instead it might be better to consider the hurricane. Or the chaotic feedback found in a small backyard creek; the ripples and eddies forming from smaller masses of interactions and they, themselves, interrelating. Sometimes to form greater agglomerations.
This is a far better representation of the human body, the animal cell, bioregion or net ecosystem. We are each hurricanes in a way. Fractal agglomerates of the positional information of particles in a fluid muck. We thrive with motion and connection. Plop us in stellar vacuum or granite mountainside and, with no connection or absolutely rigidly controlling connections, our informational patterns don’t do that well.
Without dynamic integration to the world we have no channels to exist through. We cannot touch. And without the capacity to touch the world we cannot understand.
We all recognize ‘understanding’ as more than compartmentalized knowledge. More than a tally sheet of discrete informational structures built out of rigid neurons. Something more generalized. Something vaguer, but more tactile. The impression left by a lover’s skin.
The refraction and internalization of the external. The breaking down of a self that might have been discretely itemized by the empty other, not in acceptance or allegiance to emptiness, but through the blossoming enrapture of the other into the self. Until there is no hollow, deathly, meaningless other. Only the universalized self.
This is the arrow of understanding.
Given that the only tangible truth is the internal, understanding is birthed not by attempts to kill of the internal, but reaching out and finding truth by making everything internal. To take in truth. To breath in a lover’s sweat and eradicate the lies between you. Between you and you.
But here’s the trick. Technology can facilitate the capacity to experience. Which is the basic requirement for the creation of understanding.
A hearing aid. Glasses. A microscope. A telescope. Pictures of animals from far away. Pictures of plants. A fine saw blade revealing the layers inside a quartz rock. Satellite contour mappings of valleys and water systems across an entire continent…
The more venues for and the stronger the tactile connections, the greater the capacity for experience.
Today we can actually feel individual molecules with our hands. We can caress the fringe star clusters of distant galaxies with our eyes. We can see the insides of our own bodies and recognize the pheromones dripping off our shoulders. See sound waves. Pick apart flavors and the patterned buzzing of our own nerves.
Understanding is perhaps simply the most dynamic and abstract fluid impressions of the external, it’s that which most effectively mentally grasps the fabric of existence.
We actively want greater understanding, thus we’ve strived for science.
When what we call ‘science’ gets rigid or imperialistic in the classic sense it becomes useless, but in its most dynamic it allows us channels to press up against the face of reality. More intense experience of reality giving strength to understanding. We want to touch the world around us so that we can get a stronger feel for reality. Into those nooks and crannies that require stronger dynamic channels of information.
Can there be modes and forms of understanding without industrial or even agrarian technology? Obviously yes. But increases in technology facilitate understanding. Confined to some frail bundle of six senses within a limited framework of allowable experiences there comes with that an inherent limitation to understanding. If you bound off sections of the world. Outlaw the advanced technology necessary to reach into and grasp the microscopic or the unbelievably macroscopic and distant… you ingrain a limitation on possible experience and thus understanding.
Physical limitation inspires and triggers social oppression
The problem with the rejection of technology (or more precisely, an allegiance to one limited set of possible technologies) is that scarcity and restraint is built in. The greater the technological limitation, the greater the constraint imposed.
Because our given bodies require certain forms of environmental integration and because we desire greater connection, we’ve historically traded for this on a fractured, individual level, at the expense of greater social freedom and equality. For all the reasons and things discussed earlier, the restraints of rigid-technologies naturally chafe people and inspire them to take short cuts by utilizing that which is at hand by turning people into their technology. Enter alienation and all forms of oppression.
It’s a simple reality that want and dependency together progressively facilitate the psychosis of power.
Certainly want can be reduced significantly, but there is an inherent and significant limit. Being restricted in your integration with the environment (having limited technology) means that there is a much more finite limit on survival knowledge carrying capacity and yet simultaneously restrictions on adaptability. Being limited to a very small area of the total dynamic system means that natural chaotic systems dynamics can occur beyond the periphery of one’s limits only to suddenly and drastically effect that within. Sudden regional change is a fundamental reality of the biosphere. It’s dynamic.
Want will happen. And it will do so sharply. Because society will be more regionalized. The total sum of humanity won’t be able to flow around and mesh with the biosphere as a whole, it will be broken into components that will have much less scope and fluidity. Society will be more compartmentalized into autonomous cells, and these cells will be more rigid. We can argue about degree, but the point is there will be some non-insignificant degree of this.
This is where interdependency exits the realm of mutual aid and develops the potential for serious nastiness. Where there is social want and where the fulfillment of individual want is deeply dependent upon others, there is much greater temptation on the part of the individual to drastically simplify their operating processes. To become machines in pursuit of survival. And, perhaps most importantly, to simplify away the presence of other individuals. To reinterpret them as machines as well. With every biological mechanism shouting at a cacophony of simplistic structural procedures. (Get water. Get food. Etc.) It’s very easy for the individual to despairingly become progressively rigidly locked. They start applying such rigid structures to their interactions with people. Bang. Dehumanization. Faith. Power structures. Social oppression.
Where does alienation originate? It is instilled by the overwhelming omni-presence of rigid structure. A lack of fluid, dynamic integration with the world. Baseline human biological structures have certain limitations to dynamic integration built in. Certain structural predispositions. We can’t just realign our genes and grow chlorophyll to take in sunlight through our backs or weave wings to glide through canyons hunting deer. The baseline human body is relatively rigid technology.
And people are inspired by limitation, by want, by the encroachment of rigidity, to oppress.
Limitation upon understanding likewise has this effect.
Limitations to our capacity to experience have been consistently surpassed throughout history, a flower bursting through concrete. But when others are left frozen in the concrete they can bear the brunt of such blossoming understanding.
In order for a Victorian Physicist to reach out, to explore and make discoveries involving vacuum, thousands of man hours were needed. To get the rubber, the pump, the glass, the metal… all the tools necessary to peel away the air and peer beyond the norms of our immediate environment, a massive amount of matter had to be positionally reorganized. But it would be inconvenient to educate, explain and get everyone to consent on the benefit of achieving this vector of increased integration with the world, and because most of the people in the world were still far more entrapped by more fundamental physical wants, it was very easy for the Victorians to put the wants and flourishing of the rest of humanity aside. Because the Physicist’s own rigid technological and structural entrappings have promoted an alienation from others, limited connection fails to fully reveal the effects of his actions, and centuries of aggregated social psychoses have ground down his empathy. Thus, through a diffuse system of intermediaries, Congolese miners are enslaved, ship hands are whipped and a colossal monster of wood and metal is driven across the ocean. Though the desire for integration and understanding persists, when framed by such alienating structures it can be rechanneled into driving social oppression.
Though the imagery of such Victorian Imperialism is dramatic, it is not particularly original or even that worse than similar processes on less visually epic scale.
Think of the elder whose pursuit of understanding seduces the tribe into recognizing his role and position, turning the product of their work and efforts into tendrils of his own tech. Can’t spend all day on mushrooms unless there’s folk who’re gonna provide you with food. You get social stratification. In order to preserve the elder’s high degree of mushroom-related pursuits it’s real easy to apply social coercion, personal and cultural power structures so that even in a period of want, others are forced into sacrificing their own food to the self-proclaimed elder.
Physical limitation doesn’t directly ordain social subjugation. What it does is grease the gears. It makes it easier to adopt the psychoses of power. Makes them progressively more alluring. Physical rigidity leading to mental and social rigidity. The more physical rigidity, the more and more likely social oppression will spontaneously emerge from all facets.
Spatial limitation ingrains social hierarchy
What tears apart the prisons within our minds is the roaring vacuum beyond. The unexplored frontier chased down past the horizon each night by the sun.
The first step in control is the securing of borders. Otherwise the people you seek to dominate could just walk away.
It is said that, in a simple world, a single empire can only reach as far as a horse can ride. But of course the idea of empire knows no such restrictions. One border inspires another.
It is a far more important truth that, in a simple world, a refugee can only travel as far as their feet can carry them. And the final periphery beyond the locally interrelating agglomerates of tribal power is often unreachable. In Europe’s dark ages the refugees lacked the capability to flee beyond all of infected Europe and so they hid between, taking to the forests, much as we always have. And thus the forests were eventually cleared. The only available free space encircled and crushed. This happened because priests, kings and bureaucrats had mills and horses while the serfs had none. But more specifically it all happened because the peasants were spatially limited. They were effectively fenced within authoritarianism as a result of their own limited mobility and positioning.
If we remove all the particularly non-individualized technologies that benefited Europe’s centralized powers, the same reality would remain. The spatial limitation of the peasants was both relative to that of the king’s men and absolute. Power need not be so dramatically centralized and hierarchical to still be as oppressive. Remove the tools of the power zombies and they would simply organize more localized authoritarianism. And the high cost of spatial redistribution of individuals (a single individual moving from point A to point B takes more time and energy) means that society’s natural resistance to power is lessened.
Perhaps an example is in order. When a husband beats his wife in the apartment beside mine the situation is immediate and so is my reaction. I am able to recognize it within seconds. I can move to their door in very little time and, as a consequence, I am able to take whatever action I take much sooner. Furthermore the wife can choose to immediately relocate herself into the presence of safe, protective people. All these things are spatial matters. And remain effectively the same if we replace the aggregate of nearby apartments with more distant tree houses and give the individuals involved bicycles. (The communication of the situation is slightly different matter and will be covered in the next essay.)
If you relocate the aforementioned people into the forest without significant technological choice then interpersonal power structures can leech off the high costs of relative relocation to restrain subjects. This can happen with couple removed far from any others or an entire tribe.
Because of scarcity, hunter-gatherer tribes naturally aggregate with a good deal of separation between them. When the psychoses of power take root in a tribe they are emboldened and strengthened by such spatial limitation.
Individuals can flee for other tribes, they can, as the anarcho-capitalists might say, choose their government on the market. Choose the lives they want to live and choose the people they want to live them with. And, yes, in a relatively open market of infinite options this tends to work pretty well. Oppression just isn’t that appealing. But, and here’s the kicker. Because of their spatial limitation, their choices certainly do not constitute a free market. They have rather limited available options. Because by nature of the necessary hunter-gatherer distribution, the number of other individuals they can reach to associate with is very, very finite. And each relocation, each encounter costs them a whole lot more time.
Furthermore, when oppressive concepts spread further than their “discrete” embodiments, when multiple tribes (forced by famine or battered by climate change, say) adopt a regional consensus of power archetype, the effective boundary of such an aggregate of mini-empires can surpass the traveling capacity of the potential refugee. (And let’s not even mention the even harsher inherent restrictions applied to families.)
Those on the outside of such a travesty could and normally would overwhelm and grind down such cancerous cultures. But a lack of individualized transport technology changes the odds. Simple geometry makes it harder to organize resistance around the edge of a periphery. Centralized power meanwhile retains the local advantage; it doesn’t have to travel much of anywhere.
Given a generalized anarchy, broken only by the occasional tragic psychological misstep that inspires coercive sociological rigidity, society’s most crucial healing factor lies in its ability to flee and isolate the cancer.
Our natural defense against power is free association. The ability to re-form, to route around hierarchy, bypass the malicious and fluidly create new relationships.
For this to be possible there has to be a high degree of positional interrelation. That is to say, people have to be able to relocate around one another easily.
Vacuous distance or overbearing proximity are both inconducive to such dynamicism. And tribal clusters are the worst of both worlds. The only solution is choice. Where distances between people can be overcome easily at will. Where we can rearrange ourselves with respect to the rest of humanity at a moment’s notice. When we are deprived this ability, cancerous hierarchies grow.
Communication and Freedom of information is necessary for free societies
Central to every interaction between individuals is the conveyance of information. Of course, in a certain sense, its impossible to transfer meaning from one individual to another. We each create that individually. But what we create stems from the informational structures we have at hand, the material reality between ourselves. The nature of connection to our environment, the channels by which we experience, by which we touch the rest of the world, are thus critical factors in the macroscopic behavior of a society.
Our interactions with each other are mediated through the physical realities of our environment and are wholly comprised of informational structures. We construct physical systems of contact, whether by movement of skin on skin, electrons in logic circuits, or common neural models and vibrating air. As a result, the nature of our interactions with one another is inherently dependent upon our relationship to our physical environment. In order to interact dynamically with one another we require strong channels of dynamic integration with the world around us.
Communication (although not necessarily through strict processes of symbolic logic or language) is the defining aspect of society. However you cut it, we interact through information.
If there are restrictions or limitations to our communication with one another those conditions will shape the total internal interactions of our society.
In the previous essay I glanced over some of the emergent methodologies by which societies heal the power psychosis. Central to all of these is the internal dynamic integration of the society at hand. In order to correct an injustice you have to first actually hear about it. When we make decisions pertaining to our associations with others we like to be informed. Free societies function because we’re not all fumbling in the dark. We can make knowledgeable choices and respond quickly to changes. We don’t lose sight of what the economists call the “externalities” of our interactions. Other people’s lives are immediate and tactile to our own. As a result we don’t marginalize others beyond a periphery.
Contact is the most vital component of society. We can only help or assist those we can touch. Those we can communicate with.
Resistance needs veins. Empathy needs arms
Dictators know this altogether too well. Free information brings down tyrants and heals cancers. The tools, technologies and processes of communication are antithetical to control. Control can only take root through isolation and strangulation. Governments are critically dependent on keeping their actions quiet. Keeping their citizens distributed and incapable of communication past a certain degree.
In China the country’s integration into the world economic standard has, as a byproduct, allowed its citizens to increasingly surpass physical impediments to communication. To fill the place of this physical limitation the government has found itself forced to wage an uphill battle of sociological domination. To survive the PRC has to expend increasingly vast amounts of energy on ingraining social psychoses to fill the restrictive roles of former technological limitations or absences.
But once the fiber-optic cable is laid (or better yet the mesh WiFi networks) the only thing ultimately keeping a Guangzhou school girl trading instant messages about fashion rather than insurrection is the cop/consumer in her head. At the end of the day it’s just in her head. Deeper channels of communication do simultaneously open avenues for memetic control and vapidly suicidal mental structures. …But why take chances? Outright tyrannies like Zimbabwe and Cuba know full well how reliant they are on the viscosity of their societies. They simply haven’t the energy to keep up with the more complex and elaborate mechanisms of the world’s surviving power structures. Opening the door to more dynamic interaction within and without would be akin to gutting themselves. So in many cases they’ve done the efficient thing and simply removed the technology.
Look closely and all social power systems stem from impediments to communication.
To return to an example in the previous essay, if there’s injustice or oppression but those involved are removed or dis-integrated from the rest of humanity how can recourse take place? All the self-repairing mechanisms championed by free societies depend vitally upon the capacity to convey information (speedily, effectively and across great distance) within that society. In order for an even slightly free society to function, a strong degree of contact must be possible between all individuals.
It’s the same old axiom of system dynamics: Rigid structures of interaction are bad. But so is isolation. Free societies function through the free conveyance of information. The rigid fermentation of this interaction is bad for the total dynamicism of a society, but so it the separation and isolation of it into parts. Fragmented or localized societies marginalize others (those who they are denied an intensity of material contact with) and in doing so alienate themselves, making oppression inevitable. The dissolution and regionalization of significant informational contact is an inherent and inescapable reality of hunter-gatherer life.
In practice this is blindingly obvious.
By the very nature of communication a society’s freedom is dependent upon its physical relations with the material world. Inherent physical limitations makes for inherent social limitation, restraint and oppression.
It’s impossible to speak of regional anarchy
The idea that some parts of humanity can be free while others are not is conceptually incoherent. Insomuch as anyone anywhere is oppressed, I am oppressed. I mean that not as a trite greeting card summary of solidarity in liberty, but in recognition of a basic psychological principle. To speak of being personally “free” in any sense while others are not is to leave whatever remains of the “self” a laughably meaningless shell.
Far from being revolutionary, such thinking is the definition of alienation.
Power is a social psychosis and, as such, it is ultimately something we can only dissolve away individually. But even the possibility of inaction or satisfaction in the face of such power structures is ultimately the acceptance of them in ourselves. The internal dissolution of our personal power psychoses is inseparable from external action.
You can’t coherently talk of achieving any measure of liberty in the absence of empathy, and empathy presupposes some semblance of universalized identity. Without such one person’s freedom would necessarily impinge on another’s and any strong notion of liberty would collapse. We refrain from swinging our fist into another person’s face not because of some arbitrary external structure or law, but because we recognize ourself in that person. We seek not freedom from one another, but freedom from rule. To attack ourself would be to surrender to some rule, structure and limitation. In hitting another person we of course decrease the net capacity for dynamic connection and integration in our society, but more saliently we internalize a psychological approach to the world that is irreconcilable with anything other than structures of control. The only situation in which we could speak of some people having completely abolished the power psychosis in their own lives is one in which everyone else has as well.
Empathy (and consequently morality, ethics and everything else created from its inspiration) stems from the abstract possibility of transitivity of selfhood. It’s why we instinctively frown on punching teddy bears or torturing squirrels; the cognitive structures we associate with our sensations of them are a reflected version of ourselves. The child who acts out violence against her teddy bear isn’t physically hurting anyone, not even from a panpsychic viewpoint, but such external actions are indicative of an internal intent of violence against society and, by proxy, herself.
We interact with the world by neurologically forming imprints of the world around us. We simplify our perceptions into informational structures, into Darwinianly evolving models that allow for greater traction in our contact with the world. Modeling rigid systems of limited complexity in our minds is easy, the interaction of uncountable billions of atoms can be simplified into a “lever” or “pulley.” And, accordingly, we can demonstrate a great deal of control over such systems. But systems of non-linear dynamics pose a greater challenge. Other people are preposterously, if not infinitely, inhibitory to the successful creation of such macroscopic constructs.
The way we all initiate substantive contact with other people is to, on some level, see ourselves in them. We can only deal with other people by shedding off the contextual trappings of our own position within the world and reconstructing theirs around us. As a consequence, to accept their enslavement or oppression is to accept our own.
The king, by his participation in the kingdom, is still very much a slave to the power psychosis. But so to is the monk who gathers berries in the forest, even though the king’s men may not be able to find him for torment. That there could be an entire band of monks gathering berries far from the kingdom does not make them more free. Nor does it really make the sum society more free. That a thousand could live freely while one man chains another is impossible. By inaction they accept, in acceptance they are complicit, and in complicity there is nothing but arbitrary moderation. The presence of regionally inconstant degrees of overt acts of physical oppression does not make for varying degrees of liberty. We are all on the same level there. Whereas if one man chains another and we do react, so long as we remain in action rather than completion, our actions and our own lives are still bound by that chain. Only when the chain is actually gone can we speak of achieving greater liberty, and even then it is a universal reality, not regionalized.
Tribal dispersion, though it may present some of us immediately with some of the trappings of a truer anarchy, is inherently oppressive.
Given that we have knowledge of the rest of humanity, the choice to withdraw and concentrate all our efforts within some social sub-set leaves us not only complicit in the oppression of those we push off beyond the periphery but also in violence against ourselves. To preempt this by erasing our knowledge of the rest of humanity would be even more direct violence and contribute nothing but cowardice to the same reality. No tribe, commune or region can truly flourish in their own anarchy while the rest of world sees violence and oppression. The psychological effect of alienation from others, of such localized preoccupation, is the internalization of a certain rigidity. The acceptance of structure. Turning people into our technology.
The fermentation of rigid social structure is a direct result of alienation.
Any society that dismisses externalities and focuses social value on those near at hand is really making social value a result of context and physical structure. As such it is redefining others into nothing more than the structure of their relationships and functional value to other structures. As a result, the we become nothing more than a hollow structure, the organic human soul transmuted into a structural identity. In such a world, I am this structure and you are another structure that may or may not function to the benefit and sustainability of my own structure.
The resulting society looses its warmly integrated dynamics and its internal relationships instead become matters of incredibly complex, yet rigid, mechanism. Because of the internal rigidity of personal identity all interactions are polarized towards the control of that identity’s (ie informational structure) environment. Small rigid structures can be controlled, but other people’s identity structures are too complex. If both extended systems are rigid then both will collapse violently.
No matter how pretty an isolated section of society may behave in contrast to the rest, oppression without will eventually manifest within. In the face of gross oppression worldwide, regional secession or ingrowth is capitulation and the collapse of such tribes inevitable.
Any society that embraces death will embrace oppression
To accept the inevitability of death or limitation is to accept an arbitrary degree of it. Because once the precedent has been truly set in the mind there remains no innate resistance to it. You can’t accept giving up a finite portion of your soul. You can’t really accept some oppression without beginning to accept all oppression.
It is willfully blind to believe that a society that accepts, much less embraces, the deaths of six and a half billion people will ever know peace let alone any substantive anarchy. It is demonstratively irrational to suppose that any society bound by innate physical limitations will ever achieve more than a fraction of their potential.
Physical realities are inseparable from social realities. The embrace of physical realities that restrict, control and rule our individual and collective lives is the cowardly embrace of dictatorship by environmental proxy.
Life—not in biological or taxonomic sense but rather as the blossoming act of existence itself—is an inability to accept death or rigidity. Life is motion and touch.
A transhumanist once summed up her support for the life-extension struggle in one sentence: “Existence is wonderful.” It is. Mine, yours and all the possessives you can think of. Every heartbeat is a alternating symphony of resistance and hope.
But you cannot have partial resistance. You cannot have partial hope. You either have it or you do not. If you close the door somewhere you close the door everywhere.
If you wall off a portion of it, if you set a limit to what is possible, the day will come when you reap nothing but. Where nothing is left but death. Where we have nothing left to look forward to shaping. Our acceptance of death is our alienation from ourselves. It is our alienation from life.
When we, in our incessant and inherent desire for contact, experience and understanding, press up against that wall of limitation… We will conduct its rigidity back throughout our society.
Technology can be applied dynamically
Language can be a real downer. Words and concepts gather associations that weigh heavily upon us and can obscure the underlying reality. We make simplifications and structures to deal with a given context. To the degree that these structures are integrated with the world around us they can facilitate stronger and more dexterous connections. To the degree that they become more rigid or desolate, such structures prove disastrously dis-integrated with the dynamics surrounding us.
So too, when constructing language and theoretical models around a basic reality is it vitally important that our mental structures be deeply rooted in that reality. Blindly accepting and working from previous or popular macroscopic simplifications can only result in a structure that is out of touch with the underlying dynamics.
Although concepts like “civilization” and “technology” can be simplified into some of their popular associations, any significant analysis built off of such structures will be critically unable to integrate with the root realities touched by said associations. References to “technology” as the rigid and brittle structures so obvious in today’s society can be said to effectively encompass the most visible aspects of what currently exists. But such focus obscures what could exist. …As well as some of the finer points of what is already in effect, but still overshadowed.
By attacking the dominate rigid forms of technology under the premise of all “technology”, the anarcho-primitivist discourse builds itself around macroscopic simplifications and blinds itself to details. Though a popular abstraction of “technology” is what is adroitly attacked, the actual and full definition of technology is what’s consequently thrown out. Rigidity is critiqued but, through the misapplication of broad language and concept, human agency in our environmental integration is what’s ultimately dismissed.
As such, “technology” is misidentified as stemming from a desire of control rather than contact, experience and understanding.
But the reality is, given its popular breadth as a concept, technology actually refers simply to how we interact with the world. And it is the nature of this how is the real issue, not that there is a how in the first place. There will always be a how. By attacking the very idea of hows we simply choose to blind ourselves to the hows we’re already using. And then they use us.
So the real question is what nature of technologies should we turn to. And, yes, our options include the few primitive technologies our species was once born with as well as the wide variety of structures that have been developed and applied since, but not just those.
Of course, I think we would all agree that today’s dominate technological infrastructures are unacceptable, or, at very least, less than they could be. Today most acts of creation are perverted towards structures of control before they even leave the inventor’s mind. We open up new avenues of contact and then work harder and harder to force methods of control upon them.
But the point is not all desire for contact is a false-face for the pursuit of control. In fact one might say that control makes contact impossible. We can never really know those or that which we control. Rather our worship of control is always one of surrender to security. Control is about imposing rigidity. It’s about orchestrating the world around us so that it can’t interfere with the structure within. We do this so that we might cling to this remaining structure and claim it as an identity. Control is about creating a husk to die in. To truly touch, to have contact with the world around us is irreconcilable with such. It smashes through structures of control and rebuilds them as veins and currents.
Contact is conducted though dynamic systems. And this includes systems that we popularly classify as “advanced technology.”
Telescopes, microscopes, radios and phones. Fiber-optic cables, wifi mesh networks, satellites and infrared sensors. The more complex, the more dynamic. The more points of inter-contact. The more fluid and organic such systems become. The more adaptable.
As our new structures and approaches become more dynamically refined, the better they’re able to integrate with the realities of their operating environment. In fact, beyond a certain point the technologies we create can become more dynamic than this frail, scummy planet-skin we were born into. Nanotech and biochemistry embody the current cutting edge of this drive to offer stronger and finer degrees of contact through our own bodies. (Although with both, just as with anything else, the impulsive, blind pursuit of control in such areas rejects understanding and meaningful contact at the cost of potentially catastrophic results.) We are finally gaining choice in all the myriad workings of our material world. No longer content with clunky macroscopic abstractions and simplifications, we are finally grounding the roots of our interactions and integration with the world around us.
It’s a move to stop beating the world with a crude hammer and instead begin to stroking its skin.
And, with such fine understanding and contact, we are opening up possibilities previously closed. The deaf can hear. The blind can see. The crippled can walk. The old folks can get it on.
As we’ve seen the drive for experience, for pleasure and life itself are matters of technology, the methods and structures of our interaction with the world. Information and communication technologies, transportation technologies and science itself (science in the “pursuit of understanding through touch” sense, not the “imperialism” sense) all demonstrate such emerging tendencies.
Core to the primitivist mantra is the assertion that these means of “artificial” communication and the like are, at the end of the day, utterly dismal, leaving us disconnected and constantly enslaved. It’s the least eloquent assertion and almost entirely dependent upon populist “common sense” appeals. …Because it’s completely fucking ridiculous. Whose fault is it if you can’t turn off your cellphone to just enjoy some natural solitude? Stop blaming the phone (or the blasted dagnum computer with its “email”) and take responsibility for the way you integrate with such technology. If our society doesn’t facilitate long uninterrupted walks on the beach then change society, don’t launch a crusade to abolish our ability to play with such fun toys.
Personally, I abhor phones. I just dislike the way they unevenly filter our preexisting social language. In person I’m all about the body language, hand gestures and facial quirks. But that’s just me. In contrast, I love the bulletin-board format. I was prolifically using the internet long before I really started making phone calls and I feel deeply at home with its social intricacies.
Although personal, face-to-face contact provides a lot more bandwidth, at the end of the day it’s only a matter of bandwidth. There isn’t anything any more magical about so called “direct” physical contact. And any connection is a dramatic improvement over nothing. Being able to still contact friends, no matter how distant their desires take them, is a wonderful thing. To reach out and touch Bangkok and Berlin, to be a shoulder to cry on or a ecstatic confident, to watch a volcano explode on another continent or pick out the wobbles of a distant star… Such connection is a thing of liberation. We really do feel better for our use of advanced technologies. All that’s required is a shedding off of our own rigidities and a refusal to lazily feed ourselves to new ones.
But, of course, with the more spiritual, psychological, sociological or philosophical claims against technology for which it is famous, anarcho-primitivism has developed two pragmatic arguments as crutches.
The first is that of diminishing returns. With “technology” we are said to inevitably work harder and harder to take smaller and smaller steps (something noticeable in limited frameworks such as agriculture where more energy exerted on the same amount of land is said to produce less and less per-investment). This is wrong of course, and the misapplication of the “diminishing returns” inference upon the whole of our drive towards more dynamic technologies stems from a misunderstanding of the root reality. The reason some “areas” of technology demonstrate such behavior while others do not is not because things like computer manufacturing have yet to hit some inevitable barrier (although certainly, the universe has an informational carrying capacity), it’s because things like “agriculture” are not discrete species of technological development but cast off, inherently limited, sections of a single progression. Computers are one of the rare technologies that haven’t yet reached diminishing returns, because there’s no limit to what a “computer” is! Yeah, when the length and breath of a single limited structure has been explored it sees less and less growth within those arbitrary boundaries. So fucking what? There can still be growth somewhere else! The conceptual division of technology into discrete fields creates the limitation that is then identified. And, ultimately, the accelerating “areas” of technology like nanotech computing will inevitably turn around and drastically revitalize lagging areas like “agriculture,” letting us take in sustenance by, say, chlorophyll in our backs, leaving behind the awkward and brittle orchards we once mistakenly built to rewild themselves.
The second argument appeals to the authoritarian nature of today’s technological infrastructures. It’s sometimes boiled down into sloganeering with phrases like “who’s going to go down into the caves to get your iron?” Of course the instantaneous response of “we’ll build machines to do that” is spot-on. There’s a reason modern capitalism feeds so ravenously on human labor when it could easily provide comfort. Socially we place value in power rather than liberation and thus market forces move at a relative snail’s pace towards post-scarcity. If we really cared about it, we could immediately make huge strides towards abolishing even the frailest degree of “work” without anyone sacrificing a steadily advancing first-world living standard. This much is, at least in part, plainly obvious to just about everyone. And the perpetual response of primitivism, that mechanization isn’t a real solution because someone would still have to occasionally fix the machines, is a cop-out. I’d much rather be playing around with the gears of mining machines than wheezing out my lungs in some coal mine. And then I could move on to something else. I would be free to learn another role. But all of this talk of new mining processes is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if we have the machinery or not. If there are no telescopes in the whole fucking world, I’d more than gladly go down into the mine myself and personally complete all the so called “work” required to build it myself. And you know what? I’d be more than willing to share it. That’s the whole fucking point.
The advancement towards more and more dynamic technology has never innately required and does not innately require any oppression whatsoever.
Nor, in fact, does such advancement make for any inherent catastrophes or sacrifices. The pursuit of dynamic technology is grounded in the valuing of knowledge and adaptability. It has never been about diddling around with our surroundings until we find something immediately gratifying. That’s not “technology,” that’s a just single methodology of developing technology. And in such behavior no conscious or creative effort is involved, it’s simply the mechanistic/entropic eating up of that which is around you. Entirely focused towards power, profit and control now, understanding later.
But why not understanding first and action later?
Primitivism is famous for its hesitancy, conflict and sketchiness on what constitutes appropriate technology.
Reaching into an anthill with a stick, fashioning a bow, grunting sweetly or meanly, utilizing symbolic mental structures, teaching a mother to pat a baby over her shoulder, building a hut, drawing in the mud… and god forbid we talk about permaculture or bicycles!
On the whole its most obvious weakness (and yet best rhetorical defense) is that there is no clear line. Folks talk of “that which doesn’t start to control you” but never really stop to deeply analyze that. They take it to obviously call for the abolishment of satellites, airplanes, computers and genetic engineering, but that’s not necessarily true.
Such control is a choice. We don’t have to be controlled by our technology, no more than we have to crank out and obey rigid mental structures. Just as internal rigidity is a consequence of our choices so is the resulting external rigidity. In every moment in our lives we can choose life or undeath. We choose to be governed by the environmental structures we interact with or we can choose to move through them as we desire, unhindered. The internalization of rigid structure is not innate to dealing with structures. We can change and create them and ourselves. We can be rather than accepting the world and our relations to it as is. We can constantly reshape and redefine our relations to the world. Rather than following input, we can become fountains of output.
If we are sincere in our rewilding, we cannot turn to something as limiting as primitivism.
Why not nanotech, space tech, permaculture, and dynamic technology in general? Think about how we might have built civilization if we’d been true anarchists from the beginning! Wide-eyed technological lovers oft receive fiery denouncements for wanting to play god. By seeking deeper contact and understanding, of each wanting to be gods. But if one accepts the universe of Einstein and Spinoza where existence is god. Is this such a bad thing? Rather than reject and hide from our birthright as part of the universe should we not instead finally embrace it in all of its glory? To be more godly? To be more integrated with the world around us. Is not the embrace of some random, rigid biological structure alone ultimately a embrace of alienation from the universe?
Many techno-utopians fall into a similar rut as the primitivists by treating technological progress as an undeniable external force. A salvation that will inevitably arrive someday. Both attitudes smack of an “I’m only on this side because our victory is assured” morality. A legacy borrowed from the Marxists’ perpetual wait for The Revolution, and before them, the Christians’ perpetual wait for the Rapture. The reality is that our technologies are just the embodiment of our choices.
The Solution? Be Smarter!
Choose to think rather than abdicating from it at every opportunity.
Radiate life in your every process and action.
The failings of technologies are the failings of ourselves. Our laziness and nihilism. Our greed and hate. All these are ultimately consequences of mental rigidity. Is it any wonder we excrete this stuff in physical form? The rigidity of our technology stems from psychoses that we have the agency to overcome. To surpass. To shed off. Some primitivists have outright argued that we simply don’t have the neurological capacity for mass society, the capacity for more than a certain amount of contact or freedom.
Why not? What’s stopping us? What enforces this limited capacity? We make ourselves. Unshackled, we practically burst with creativity. Why should we snuff it out?
As long as we are alive there is no such thing as an inevitability.
We do not live in a closed system
Although its certainly true our current mass infrastructure cannot and will not survive any prolonged contact with the basic laws of physics, a permanent or catastrophic collapse is not inevitable.
The biosphere is a complex nonlinear system and concrete parking lots are not. Because our most physically dominant technologies are less ‘complex’ (or, as I have been using the term, ‘dynamic’) than their surrounding environment by relatively infinite orders of magnitude, they are deeply unstable. Furthermore, the blunt macroscopic construction of our technological systems and infrastructure leaves them especially vulnerable to entropy as the easiest resources are depleted.
Our response to the inadequacies of our infrastructure’s integration with its environment is to build ever more extended structure on top of it. Rather than abolishing and rebuilding, or just modifying our existing technologies, we add endlessly to them. Concrete upon concrete. Text upon text. Until the sheer mass of technostructure begins to rival the biomass around it.
Our structures eat up dynamicism and replace it with rigidity. But this process of expansion is the only thing that keeps those resulting rigid structures intact. We use up what we can get to easily but as those resources are depleted it becomes increasingly important to expend and commit an exponentially greater proportion of our net civilization towards the upkeep of what we’ve already built. Eventually, in a closed system, the basic mathematical realities of chaos theory and entropy will kick our ass and the catastrophic collapse of this rigid system we’ve paved over the face of the earth will become an inevitability. Due to the extremely over-extended and omnipresent nature of our infrastructure, there will be no faucet of life in the biosphere unaffected. Needless to say our 6.5 billion little frail sedentary bodies will not do so well. In short, we are fucked.
…Except that we do not live in a closed system.
Although our civilization is in dire trouble and our technological infrastructure is a hideous embarrassment, we are not doomed. The crash is not an inevitability. And neither under the banner of “sustainability” are any fundamental restrictions, be they sociological or material, inevitable.
Although grinding into the Earth’s crust for specific resources is a progressively harder and harder zero-sum game, the plain and simple reality is that we have the capability to reach huge swathes of resources in an extremely productive, cost-effective manner (far more efficient, in fact, than any previous process available us in history). What’s more, in an unprecedented (and probably unreasonable) act of forgiveness on behalf of the universe, we don’t have to completely destroy our rotting civilization in order to start acquiring them. We can implement this new process of acquiring resources and use the proceeds to gradually fluidly abolish the horrific structural cancers of our civilization. All the while giving us footing to develop more dynamic and integrateable technologies. And, if that weren’t enough, the rigid structures we utilize in this process don’t inherently replace biomass. Because we won’t be mining our resources from within a dynamic biosphere.
We’ll be chewing up nature’s little bite-sized gifts and breathing in the source of all energy on Earth, finally allowing us to bypass the middlemen and stop fucking things up for them. Asteroids and solar energy. It’s a real simple and practical solution.
Stop doing your fucking around in an infinitely complex non-linear dynamic system you don’t yet understand. In 2020 there’s an asteroid that’s going to swing by the Earth’s doorstep carrying Twenty Trillion Dollars worth (today’s market) of precious metals vital to our advanced electric circuitry based technology. Said asteroid is one of millions of lifeless boulders spread across the sky. Rigid and desolate. Dead rocks waiting to be ingested into the seeds of life. 3554 Amun will be far easier to reach than the moon. If even the barest amount of today’s tech is applied to its capture (and entrepreneurs are already lining up) it will completely devalue the world’s financial markets. The roots of the limits and restrictions, the scarcities that keep the Third World under First World satellites, that keep the mythical “hundred dollar laptop” at something as high as one hundred dollars, will begin to dissolve.
That is, if all the people waiting for it are still there when it arrives.
If the world’s superpowers and their multinational corporate apparatus are ready with legal restrictions, subsidies and financial treaties, the resulting materials will be funneled into existing power-structures and their material detritus (our progressively fucked up global infrastructure).
But far worse than such a continuance of today’s near-fascist powerstructures is the possibility that no one will be waiting for 3554 Amun, or, for that matter, ever again look up at the sky with hope. That our global infrastructure will finally be forced to the point of absolute collapse.
Because, and here’s the problem, Derrik Jensen is right. We are playing for the endgame. If our civilization collapses hard, it might very well be impossible to rebuild. If we crash once and we crash bad, civilization will be permanently limited. We will live in a closed system. A permanent ceiling to our technology, be it dynamic or rigid. Permanent restrictions felt in every aspect of society. Limits to what we can do, who we can be, where we can go, how we can experience… limits to our capacity to touch and understand.
The cheap resources that first spurred and allowed technological development will be effectively depleted, and the remains will progressively become useless. Our fossil fuels will be almost impossible to reach and the little we acquire will have to work far harder to build far less. If we fall there’s a very real chance we will never be able to get up again. That will be it.
And make no mistake about it, the crash will suck.
Our lives will be, on the whole, more horrid than ever before in history. You see, what’s being glossed over is that, though advanced technology in the form of wifi mesh networks and space-elevators may disappear permanently, we simply won’t lose all the technologies created by this civilization project. In fact, it looks like we’ll default on middle ages technology. With all the oppression that makes for. And heavier restrictions on anarchist organizing or resistance.
Serious metallurgy will peak as will, obviously, fossil fuels, but metal won’t peak as much. When the last major nation states succumb to entropy and the survivalists’ bullets have finally run out, the resulting tech level will not be pre-agrarian stone age, it will be a perpetual iron-age. Although complicated endeavors will be hindered, the loose distribution of scrap metal will democratize simplistic metallurgy. Oxidization will eventually deplete vast amounts of scrap iron, but enough mass deposits will remain immediately viable for millennia and enough modern metallurgical compounds will resist oxidization to likewise matter. Likewise, enough topsoil will be farmable in various ways for forms of agriculture to continue (and it will, because six and a half billion people don’t just give in to reductions in food supply). Although it will be impossible to construct complicated circuits or analyze proteins, it will be very easy to construct swords, hoes, pitchforks, crossbows, and, to a lesser extent, guns. However the acquisition and smelting process will lend itself more to social hierarchies than to individualized knowledge. And with information technologies essentially annihilated, anarchists will drowned out by the fiefdoms around them. Paranoia stems from lackings in one’s knowledge and, as information is restricted, old psychoses will take root. Some tribes, by sheer luck, will end up isolated from one another and will achieve some equilibrium of blandness. But most will not.
If civilization collapses what emerges will be pretty fucking simple. The gun-nuts won’t fade away as their guns rust, they’ll fucking expand little fiefdoms. If the crash is particularly bad on the environment this’ll make for universal unending tribal violence (a few magnitudes worse than pre-Colombian Northern America, but granted, not hyperbolic road-warrior dystopia). If the crash is anything but utterly catastrophic it’ll simply shatter the nation state system back into feudal age principalities. The wealth, values and structures created by civilization will still exist. The same dread forces encapsulated by “civilization” will still exist. The only difference (besides the incredibly horrific living conditions and death rates within) will be the frail niche capacity for autonomous societies on the periphery.
But even if these autonomous zones are fully utilized, they will still be incredibly dependent upon the horrific society around them. Deeply intertwined in the ecology. They will be the new bourgeoisie. The suburban autonomist paradises. Never mind that undermining the overpacked ministates (and consequently accepting or dealing with refugees from such) will not be in their best interests as the ecology couldn’t handle influxes of hunter-gatherers our of slave-agrarian societies and that inside/outside dichotomies would kill any potential anarchism in the long term… The basic reality is that they will have lived through the most traumatic and vicious event in Human history and that, to even begin to function as a people, they will have to divorce themselves from the rest of humanity. They will have to create hierarchies of human value based upon relative positions and roles. “Diversity” in whatever jumble of associations one has, will not be desirable because it will not be sustainable. Small forms of localized and specialized change will be accepted while any form of serious deviation will carry with it a direct price in terms of energy or food.
And the ministates? They will simply assist in further ingraining the memes and cultural psychoses of our current society. The logical progression of our balkanized suburbs, a society that protectively contracts into little closed zones of ingrown hierarchies. They will finally know safety from the globalization process of communication and competing ideas. Although the trite physical comforts of modern civilization will disappear, it will ultimately be a huge relief to many. Social hierarchies and oppressions will continue free from dissonance, with reason to further march down the path of nihilistic mental rigidity.
Furthermore, any serious technological collapse will bring with it a vast ecological collapse.
And it’s a perfectly reasonable possibility that humanity, or even mammals, will not survive such. Never mind the very real possibility of nuclear winter (and no, your survival skills are not going to be able to protect you from that kind of radiation) or the windows finally cracking on the Pentagon’s biowarfare lab, the plain and simple reality is that we’re in the middle of the greatest alteration to the biosphere since before the fucking dinosaurs. And, as the computer guts decompose in the abandoned suburban homes, as the last bits of localization self-imposed by our civilization’s infrastructure breaks down and the sheer energy of our chemical blasphemy finally merges into Earth’s outer fluid, a fucking gazillion butterfly wings are going to flap with all their might. As the biosphere’s non-linear dynamics reaction to these last few centuries of sudden and violent alteration plays itself out, the biosphere is going to change in a big way. You don’t make that degree of drastic chemical and macro-physiological revisions without expecting turbulence. Whether or not we peaceably and instantaneously evolve past fossil fuels tomorrow or all die in some mega-collapse, the effect of the shit we’ve been stirring into the pot is going to become more pronounced. And on a biological level this is going to be catastrophic. See the only defining feature of the biosphere is that it’s dynamic. A big bundle of scummy fluid. Taxonomic conceptual structures like “interdependent networks of species and fauna” are just incidental arrangements of macroscopic structures. Fuck, what makes you think DNA will naturally survive into the next iteration of the Earth’s crust?
The Earth’s scummy surface is just going through one mild iteration of entropic chemistry. Frail semblances of repetitive structures and mild plateaus in overall energetic interaction do not make for any realistic security. And with the rise of our civilization we’ve just kicked the shit out of whatever momentarily normalizing patterns may have been buffering us.
There is no magical restoring force of equilibrium in the biosphere to something in any way compatible with life, much less humanity. The “natural state of things” is a vicious myth propagated by the church of biology. There is no real probability that, come a collapse, there will be a role for us or anything like us. And there certainly won’t be in a few more million years.
To embrace that is to embrace death. To push our dependents, the rest of society, our own dreams and desires beyond a periphery based on their relevance to immediate physical guides. To embrace role-filling within constraints. To embrace limitation. A finite set of possible existences. A normalization away from contact, experimentation and evolution in favor of immediate usefulness, our functionality as biological cogs.
The psychological and sociological effects of acceptance alone are reason alone to fight the crash till our last breath.
But hope is more than rational, it is almost justified.
The limitations presented by the Earth alone are not reasonable guidelines to the future. Vast and significant social forces, both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian are very much in the processes of following our desire for contact beyond our immediate puddle. And the consequences of such are anything but disregardable. Closed system analysis is simply an insufficient basis for declarations of inevitability.
Furthermore, such space expansion is far from a simple postponement of the same story. It’s simply impossible to apply the systematic tendencies, constraints and realities of Earth to the heavens. Even if we do decide to expand rather than just utilize astral resources as a platform to fix our relationship with the biosphere, relativity will immediately quash any empire building or any centralized civilization. You see, the very nature of space-time dissolves rigid structures on truly macroscopic scales. There can never be any galactic empires (even ones that later crash from diminishing resource returns). It’s impossible. Yet at the same time there can still be connection and enough individuals immediately connected as to dissolve regional oppression and authoritarianism. Furthermore, and here’s the absolutely critical component, humanity will become truly distributed and redundant rather than intractably interdependent. No longer trapped within a biosphere pressed between walls of desolation and rigidity, we’ll finally shed off this mistaken iteration of sedentary life and return as hunter-gatherers between the stars. Tribes of lessening of material interdependence, much larger sustainability and thus larger market pools for anarchy to blossom. With perpetually plentiful resources for every diverse desire.
Contrary to popular assertion, we are not machines grinding out the inevitable, consequences of our environment, ultimately controlled by everything around us. We are neither mere products of our food supply nor inconsequential components of an already written collapse. We’re smart people and we can make choices. We can reach out, explore, learn and we can invent. We can choose connection rather than isolation and we can choose to see the externalities of our actions clearly. We do not yet live in a closed system. There is still hope.
Asserting otherwise does more than buy into insulting social mechanism, it develops and reinforces such.
Hard though the struggle may be, the ease of partial victories will always cost us more
Demand nothing less than everything and take whatever you can get. But don’t take at the expense of gaining further ground. It’s a simple premise. Take pie, but don’t trade way any hope of taking the pie factory in the process. Take whatever scant freedom they allow but, for the love of god, don’t ever cease fighting for infinity. We have a cuss word specifically set aside for people who do that: Liberals.
Primitivism today exists at the nexus of a modern trend in Anarchism to embrace only what’s “winnable” and dismiss the rest. The consequence is a race-to-the-bottom in laziness. How to get the most dramatic of victories with the least expenditure. The crash, of course, is the natural endpoint of such regression. The promise of massive social change with almost zero personal exertion. (And cinematic scenes of explosions and mass struggle are always more aesthetically pleasing than tame FNB gatherings.)
Don’t get me wrong, the problem with collapse is not that it’s too easy a solution (no one should have to bleed to see change in this world, martyrdom is for nihilists, people who give a shit what others think about them and closet authoritarians). But even if we are to momentarily ignore the fact that it’s impossible, the primitivist dream paradise doesn’t go far enough. The nature of The Crash sets permanent limitations to future generations. If logging CEOs don’t give a crap about humanity 500 years from now, primitivists most definitely don’t give a crap about humanity 100,000 years from now. Because somehow violently murdering 6.5 Billion People to supposedly make a better world 500 years from now at the expense of our ancestors longing for rocketships when the next meteor hits is supposedly better than killing off some spotted owls to make a quick buck for one’s family. Christ. Even thinking in those terms gives me a headache. I honestly have no clue how the collapse cheerleaders can sleep at night. …They’re certainly not sleeping with transsexuals, epileptics, women with small birth canals, or anyone alive thanks to continued surgery, medication or mechanical assistance.
So if not collapse, and not some sort of draconian social imposition of arbitrary technological limitation, what are we left with?
Well, right away let’s make clear that a stasis with our current technology via some unmitigated classical left-wing anarchism would be unsustainable. Never mind that work is hierarchy in action, the very factory infrastructure that many syndicalist and communist or schemes revolve around is utterly illogical. Though primitivist societies may be more oppressive, such doesn’t change the basic physics of our biosphere. Technological change is needed.
It’s a pretty common flippant assertion on the part of primitivists that the only endpoint for technological advance is a nightmare of fractal chaos and mechanical death. I think this is some pretty fucking ridiculous immature masturbatory nihilism. Certainly our technologies could go all kinds of nasty places. But I don’t think the “upbound technological curve” that futurists speak of these days is heading in any of these directions. And I certainly don’t think a world of infinite technological possibility would make fascism an inevitability.
If we are to presume continued technological advance in the general direction of greater dynamic integration, we must consider the consequences of more fluid information technologies, mechanical refinement and biochemical mastery. (We can more or less ignore transportation tech, as it doesn’t matter where or in what context we locate a society, these same basic realities will remain.)
As far as information technologies go, it’s obvious that advances will progressively bring about the dissolution of public privacy. Everything you do in the presence of others will eventually be able to be remembered in perfect clarity and such memories instantly transferred to others. Inert matter will evolve a deeper capacity for recording. Our footsteps will be apparent to anyone who cares to look.
To the degree that the government or any power structure manages to secure control over this process they will gain absolute power to define truth. And, of course, absolute knowledge of their constituents. Which will threaten to permanently quash any semblance of resistance. Though some distorted liberal populist democracy might survive in such a state for as much as a century, the fascist tendency will evolve the institution rapidly. And if the state successfully eradicates the grassroots development of rival technologies, permanent perpetual fascism will be assured. Humanity will be progressively regulated into machinery and the sum structure will die a heat death, our unthinking bodies locked in step or something. It doesn’t really matter. In the onset of global fascism, whatever its form there is a point of singularity past which we can only die. Don’t believe that insipid shit about “so long as there is one beating heart.” Let me tell you, they’ll have a big fucking board displaying every heart that dares to beat. And then the robo-wolves will get ‘em.
However, to the degree that our accelerating information tech is decentralized and access to it is equalized, our natural antibodies to abuse, oppression and control will engage with extreme efficiency. The externalities of our actions will become instantly apparent and there the “tragedy of the commons” will cease. It’s worth noting that, in the absence of centralized power, individual and consensually arranged mutual privacy will continue. So long as anonymity is publicly desired in any venue, basic market forces will supply it. But it won’t help you get away with murder. The main result will be that, since access to any information desired will be distributed and truth commonly valued, it will be practically impossible to rule or coerce others.
Authority is derived from information scarcities and a post-scarcity society would annihilate the very concept of state secrets. Freedom of association and basic tools of defense would make prisons and, in fact, all retributive systems of “justice” starkly purposeless. Through uncountable processes the desire for freedom and social connection would make any anarchy so effective as to make even the very idea of sitcoms seem insanely dystopian.
…Which brings us to the second field of technological advance, self-knowledge. As medical knowledge moves out of the bumbling script-kiddie realm and into actual understanding, we’ll gain such strength and security as to instantly abolish almost every major cultural -archy. Sex, “race”, gender, prehensile-tail or no prehensile-tail… all that stuff will dissolve. The most immediate physical limitations that facilitate power psychoses will give way. When we master biochemistry to the degree that we actually know what we’re fucking with an incredibly potent window will open up to us.
Self-knowledge and agency in the workings of one’s own body is a big deal, and unlike the destruction of public privacy it’s hard to imagine any downsides to achieving having such. I mentioned how there’s not even the barest of pretenses that primitivists are on the same side as transfolk. But birth control is an even bigger issue. Would you really trust your body with some herbal concoction? Oh, wait, nine times out of ten the primitivists hawking “indigenous” forms of birth control are talking about someone else’s body.
Of course it’s true that as things stand, with greater medical refinement, the lethargic small-mindedness of our current market would acquire greater potency. And, indeed, so long as a corporatist economy has a hierarchical stranglehold on technological development (which pretty much boils down to intellectual property), chances are we’ll be fucked long before any honest, hard-working gene-hacker starts growing his own glow-in-the-dark butterfly wings. We all know it’s probably only a matter of time before some GM foods haxored by a greedy and lazy corporate PhD spins out of control and kills us all. If corporate capitalism persists.
Which brings us to nanotech and decentralized fabrication in general.
On the upside we’ve got both the absolute end of scarcity and the fulfillment of the old dream wherein each and every “worker” controls the means of production individually. The production not just of model #12, but of practically anything they desire. …On the downside it means that one day each and every one of these “workers” will more or less have their finger on the button to Armageddon. Today one can make incredibly disruptive weapons if not outright WMDs with only a few thousand dollars. Imagine what’ll be possible tomorrow.
So, yes, there’s a tension there. A need to make the world a better place today, so that when such higher tech eventually becomes omnipresent there aren’t any disgruntled folks to be cataclysmically angry about something.
We’ve got four possible futures: Complete Annihilation. Permanent Fascism. Permanent Post-Scarcity Anarchy. or Repeat Struggles Endlessly.
By embracing the drive towards more dynamic technology we reject perpetual struggle and try to chance it between the first three (not that Annihilation and Fascism are different in anything but cosmetics). If we go with primitivism and somehow survive the cracked bio-warfare labs we get Endless Struggle for a lengthy period followed inevitably by Complete Annihilation. The human drive for greater contact and deeper channels of experience will press up against the permanent technological limitations of a post-collapse Earth and conduct such physical limitation into the social realm. Oppression will be rampant.
But, yes, it will not even near the infinite amount of oppression we risk if we continue to pursue technological advances. As technology grows so do the stakes. Things run faster. Collapse, Armageddon, the Police State… one deviation and any of them could take the entire world.
But they’re not the only ones.
The internet has seen far greater propagation of anarchist values than anything else in history. With every technological advance the struggle has been getting more intense. While the sane have built telescopes and phones, the abusive spouses and tribal elders of prehistory have progressively gained tanks and fighter jets. Hitler’s Germany couldn’t even begin to rival the insidious powers rife across the world today. But neither does the Spanish Revolution hold a fucking candle to the anti-authoritarian insurrection bubbling in every city in the world today. The strength brought to bear by today’s oppressive power structures is utterly without comparison. And yet they aren’t winning. We can march on Washington in an outright black bloc two thousand strong and despite a military that amasses in every every continent on Earth, despite enough nuclear missiles to vaporize the topsoil, despite an economic system beaten into every child at birth, despite orbital platforms that can trace the flight of dragonflies, despite mobile EMPs that can cause car accidents without trace, despite an unprecedented coordination between every major nationstate on Earth so that they can archive 95% of their citizens electronic communications… they dare not even mow us down with bullets.
We took Seattle and all they could use was clubs, pepper spray and tear gas. We held Oaxaca for half a fucking year and yet they were so afraid of public opinion they barely killed anyone. We kill cops in Greece, blow up banks, prisons and police stations on an almost monthly basis, and yet they barely dare to respond. We still have a union a million strong in Spain. For a few months we were Argentina. We gather armies and armed with nothing more than sticks evict the police from the streets of South Korea. We write code in our mothers’ basements that destroy their desperate, last minute, multi-billion dollar attempts to control our technologies. We flagrantly run community centers, libraries, schools, factories, radio stations, and gardens in full view of the public in dozens upon dozens of countries around the world. We fucking outright, absolutely, 100%, unabashedly, militantly, and vocally, oppose every last power structure in the world. And they fight for dear life just to tap our phones. Because we are but the tip of billions. The radical blade of the entire world’s conscience.
And despite the hundreds of fucked up psychotics who’ve had their hand on the keys to global annihilation we are all still here.
But let’s be fucking clear here. We’ve never had anything but the slimmest margin of a chance. If you’re in the movement even the slightest bit because you think it’s inevitably or even likely destined for power, you’re in the wrong movement. Get the fuck out now.
The point isn’t that we’re fighting a losing battle with next to no chance, oh poor martyrs us. The point is that we fucking have a chance. The sheer ecstatic, miraculous implausibility of that. That, against all odds, it is feasibly possible for good to actually win. All that’s required is to, at the end of the day, have inspired each and every single one of 6.5 billion people to become full-fledged anarchists. To personally choose to throw away the power psychosis.
I’ve seen worse odds.
Knowing that we’ve got a shot. Knowing that we do have that choice. Knowing that we do have agency in the world. That’s what makes me jump out of bed in the wee hours of the morning to punch the sky, climb dew-laden trees, dance through the empty city streets and cry out thanks to the stars.
Though there may be near infinite night around, even the smallest drop of light makes the darkness irrelevant.
The new is possible
The past has no monopoly on the possibilities of the future.
The perpetual self-justification of primitivism is that although six and a half billion people dying might be a bad thing, it’s inevitable. The concept of the inevitable runs core throughout primitivism which plays perfectly into the nihilistic lethargy, but it’s also somewhat of an inherent result given their theoretical focus on anthropology.
From what was originally a positive reevaluation that sought to constructively take insights from indigenous and historical societies, primitivism has become a self-reinforcing faith that our only options lie in the past.
The trap is a simple one, and particularly effective as our movement begins to institutionalize burnout. Certain primitive and indigenous societies offer undeniable proof of anarchistic principles in action and tangibility is such a mighty opiate as to leave further exploration and critique undesired. I know that these essays have been received by some as though I were kicking their puppy. Primitivism and green anarchy in general has gotten wrapped in a certain immediate hope that red anarchism just can’t match. (Except where red insurrectionists start sympathizing with certain showy authoritarian right-wing anti-imperialist terrorist groups, but we won’t talk about that. Because it’s too embarrassing.) Burning condos offers immediate gratification, whereas union organizing is a pain. Classical talk of an eventual international rising five hundred or thousand years from now is simply not as rewarding as a soon-to-come Crash that reverts things back to the natural order of anarchy.
And, boy oh boy, does anthropology offer good case studies in the realistic effectiveness of anarchistic societies. But for those desperately seeking a glimmer of hope, the canonization of such societies has become far too instinctive and negative qualities pass without serious critique. Passing mention is made about “imperfections,” without really seeking to address them. Part of this stems from an inherited legacy of “cultural anti-imperialism” that really functions as postmodernism and complete ethical abdication in disguise. (Although, to his credit, John Zerzan long ago recognized that postmodernism was in many ways antithetical to the primitivist project as well as to anarchism in general.) But the biggest part of this stems from the sheer relief of having actual anthropological evidence and being part of a far bigger story.
Faced with the daily pressure of seeking, discovering and defending ways forward, it’s far easier to declare the universe on your side. Yes, formalized power structures piggybacked alongside our technological innovations, the archaeological record clearly shows that (although it also shows scattered examples of anti-authoritarian cities and agrarian societies throughout civilization). But non-formalized interpersonal power structures can be just as bad, if not more immediate and controlling. Our relations with other people don’t have to be systematically oppressive to still be oppressive. And the controlling limitations of tribal life are very conducive to subtle but unbelievably strong power psychoses. Physical limitations both inspire and facilitate social oppression.
Of course many primitive societies demonstrate anarchistic principles. Anarchy works! Get over it. It takes every last institution on Earth struggling 24/7 to even begin to blind us to such a basic social reality. Insofar as society even begins to function, it embodies a degree of anarchism. And, yeah, certainly some components of our society, both prehistorical and indigenous, were pretty decent. But why should that be good enough?
Those who remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Those who get wrapped up in the structures of the past will only operate within the structures of the past. If you only accept as possible what has already happened then, duh, any real technological progress past this point is impossible. But it’s not. Looking back for ideas is wonderful, but let’s not presume that the past has all, or even the best, answers.
I scrawled these essays on napkins summer 2006 blitzed out of my mind at 4am in the back of a diner. It shows. The prose is tangled as all hell and shot up with the spray of five-dollar words my brain spits up when it can’t find the right one. In my defense my young head was filled to the brim and riven with tension from my break with primitivism—I desperately needed to get it all down on paper by any means necessary.
Surprising they actually had an effect. Perhaps folks were just starved for any critique of primitivism thought more original than “that’s impractical” and I just filled a niche at the right time, but traffic to my little site took off and soon I was finding lines requoted in random places, in foreign radical zines and twitter posts from strangers. Of course the direct footprint of these essays wasn’t as big as I might have wished, but attitudes in radical communities have been shifting. Where certain primitivist assertions were once received uncritically, I find folks are now at least aware of the existence of a much broader radical discourse capable of contesting them. I’m happy to have helped disseminate some of those ideas.
These days I and increasingly more than a few others in the scene with roots in anarcho-primitivism have taken to identifying ourselves as anarcho-transhumanists. The change in terminology may appear drastic, but for most of us it wasn’t so much a reversal as a deepening. We still retain and cherish much of the perspective primitivism gave us, our horizons have just expanded. It feels good.
By William Gillis
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.
When you have the key that unlocks all the deepest doors within you, yet you don’t know how to place it in the lock, then what does that make you? What does that make me or even us? I suppose it means we’re stuck. Damned to wandering this Earth with the keys to the Universe in our pockets, reluctant to figure out the perfect combination to unlock those celestial gates to anywhere and everywhere.
That which we already have in our possession is far more powerful than all the religions of all the worlds combined and it’s source is you. It is all of us…
When everything in existence comes together, from the lowest plane to the highest celestial abode, including every being, every thought-form and every act…When the cosmos itself dissolves or is absorbed back into its cause, then we all return to our natural state. A state, in which All is One, as it always has been.
We carry the worlds in our hearts, minds and souls. Wherever we go, we carry them with us…Mistakenly believing that they emanate from outside us, when they originate from pure consciousness. The part of our awareness who speaks silence. It knows us better than we know ourselves, as all the insight that we believe is ours, has bestowed upon us by it. Our silent witness is ever-vigilantly watching from the background. It knows no secrets and nothing can be withheld from it. Our soul is laid bare to it…as it is the spirit from which the soul sprung.
It knows our bodies and our minds far more intimately than we can comprehend at this time. It seeks to fulfil only our highest potential, while it sees all paths laid out before us. What we may become, what we could be and what we is inevitably our fate. For it, time is the manner our consciousness interprets a sequence of moments. It is how it measures all temporary change that is ongoing, but that in the grand scheme of things never truly was. It is light incarnate. The cloth from which we were all cut from is but a spark. Yet, to find the spark means that we may eventually be led to the flame. However, we should beware, following fire may get us burnt. It may vanquish our bodies, as all our delusions are set ablaze. Nonetheless, the pain can only be as strong as the heights of pleasure we attain. For however high we soar, the further we must fall. And so our soul becomes the great destroyer and the infinite liberator of us all… It is a part of that, which shapes the fabric of our finite realities. It is infinite, pure existence beyond all thought and action.
May The Great Spirit Walk With You 〰
There are many things in this world that we simply take for granted. When you can hardly afford food, then heating is not on top of the list during winter…Regardless how cold it may get. When I first began to compose my Masters dissertation, I barely made it through Christmas. Working was hardly an option after losing three jobs over not having hot water. At the time, a friend sat me down and gave me a talk about “self-respect”. With food and heating, he was only one of many to look down on me for not having the basic essentials. The cold had hardened me to the degree where I couldn’t have cared less about what we was saying. For him, fuel poverty was me punishing myself. He still does not realise fuel poverty has nothing to do with self-harming. Trust me, there are more effective ways, but it’s not like anyone actually cares about the reality of the poor. As a palliative care professional, I’ve seen many homes that were too expensive for the elderly to even contemplate heating. They couldn’t get out of bed to make a cup of tea, and countless carers just get orders to talk it through with them. Not help them. Not relocate them. Just have a talk about how they plan to change their situation… That disgusts me as much as it did then. Mainly, because they had no support or other options than to prepare for the inevitable. Their position was reduced to that of our ancestors, whom we abandoned when they were unable to withstand the extreme temperatures or could no longer continue with the nomadic lifestyle of the tribe. It was an honour for them to be left behind, sacrificing their lives so that their offsprings had a better chance at survival. Nowadays, it is no longer optional. We expect them to take one for the team, even if that means dying alone. Regardless of how old they are, they do not stand a chance in a time, when young people suffer the same ordeal.
The colder it gets, the more people feel a sense of peace and tranquility. Many don’t know that it is simply their bodies sharing information with the brain in a way that prepares them for whatever may come. Winter after winter, I tried to work from within the system to help, but then tragedy struck me. In many ways, it was poetic justice for my inability to do anything that would save lives. During the coldest of nights, when the temperatures dropped to -15C and I was struggling with extreme hypothermia, the thought that the end was nigh crept up at me. Believe it or not, I didn’t care. The cold does that… When all the heat was gone, as my head began to feel as light as cottonwool, I felt at peace. I wasn’t even 25 years old, but I had made my choice to study, when no one believed that I could, even if it would kill me. At least, I would die the way that I lived…without regrets for learnt lessons.
Before I lost consciousness that night, I prayed and then there was just a huge cut to black. I awoke in hospital, they couldn’t keep me for longer than a couple hours after I’d warmed up a little. So, they sent me on my merry way. After dragging myself back across town, whatever heat I had gained was fading fast. My stomach was empty and the only thing keeping me conscious was searing pain. A part of me knew that if the pain faded, I may lose consciousness and not wake up again.
By the time I actually turned 25, I had almost died three times. Once by knife. The second time, I almost drowned. And the third, through freezing. Near-death experiences at that point seemed more painful than actual death. Each time I was on the brink, someone would bring me back…and I was stuck to do it all over again. After all, I’m still very grateful for the help I received, but I just wanted it to be over. There was no improvement or compassion. The homeless and the poor rarely receive that. The higher echelons of society just view them as wastes of space, no matter how much they have contributed or how much they could still contribute given half a chance.
This winter is supposed to be much worse than the last three winters combined. With every winter, it becomes harder as much as my body acclimatises. The temperatures dropped close to zero before the end of October. Without being too melodramatic, every winter has become a chance for rebirth, for each winter could be my last. That’s the reality of fuel poverty… It is life or death for millions.
Despite all of this, I still work for people that the system has equally abandoned without payment for my services. There are days, even weeks, when simply walking or moving becomes excruciating, but except painkillers there’s nothing anyone can do. I’m no saint, nor am I a martyr, but for what it’s worth, I prefer to feel the pain, instead of taking the risk to spend my last moments dosed up, not knowing where up or down is… In the cold, a conscious death is not easy, but it is surprisingly peaceful. Like when you fall asleep in the snow, there comes a point, when you don’t feel your body anymore…you don’t want to think or move. Aacceptance is all there is. So, if you’re in a similar situation, don’t be afraid. Whatever happens, it is not the end for either of us.
This is probably the last thing that I’ll post for quite a while. I’m not writing this to scare anyone, I simply wish that when you read these paragraphs, it will inspire you to take a moment out of your busy schedule and celebrate your life. Many don’t get that opportunity before the ground shatters underneath their feet, so seize the present moment… All that we have can disappear in the blink of an eye without ever getting it back.
I hope you have a blissful winter. May the Great Spirit watch over you and keep you safe from harm.
All my love…
You cannot conquer the mind of a man, if you do not know his heart
…and you cannot win over his heart, if so you do not know his mind
When we think of hard times in the West, we think of homelessness, unemployment or reading about the daily terror attack in the newspaper. We do not think of situations in terms of third world countries, as we perceive our way of life to be above a state, where our societies could easily revert back to the Middle Ages… Although a significant percentage of the global population understand that this may be inevitable, as a result of our modern lifestyle, we simply don’t want the carousel-ride to end just yet.
This leads me to the question, when can we be fully prepared to watch our civilisation fall? A week, a month, or even few years, after finding out? How long until our attachments to the way we live fade? How long until our aversion to the violence and genocide that routinely happens in other countries no longer has a hold on us? Truth be told, we may as well wait for the return of the old Gods… No attachment or aversion disappears on its own. (Exceptions make the rule!) Few reach the heights of comfort without any external stimuli that exhaust their worldly desires.
The war-drums are warming up. Every beat ushers in a new age…Yet, it’s arrival will be marked by the death of millions and destruction of almost everything we’ve come to know. Whether we are ready is irrelevant to our leaders as well as our enemies, as long as the outcome compares to what they’ve had in mind.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is war… Not the average long-distance or turf war, but the genocide of all ethnicities that do not submit to political correctness and/or religious authority.
In view of cultural traditions all over the world, Merkel, Clinton and Abbot paint a picture of women in the modern age… Women in power have become patsies that are incapable of making intelligent decisions with forethought and common sense. We are now represented by women that can be bought for a price and it’ll seal their fate as well as our own.
In Islam, women are commonly mistreated and forced to engage in activities that they’d rather not, but the current imperialistic conquest has given them the time to breathe, as their fathers, husbands, uncles and sons focus their attention elsewhere… That won’t last long. However, for victims of prolonged sexual slavery, those few weeks or months, when they’re not raped several times a day/night, is a blessing… Fear of pain and suffering clouds their minds to such a degree that extreme forms of Stockholm syndrome can hardly compare to how deeply they have been brainwashed. Sadly, they will not be the last. Without anything but blind faith to hold onto, no one resists brainwashing indefinitely…
Whatever happens, it is only temporary. Regardless of what it is, it cannot last. Nothing does. Knowing this, we can survive the unspeakable and the insufferable. Although whatever and whoever is inflicting pain would like you to believe that they can do so forever… They truly cannot.
As long as you communicate as little information as possible (in the form of opinions, plans), you limit the knowledge others have about you. Information, even false information, is revealing. If you are expected to provide information, don’t give any. Don’t think that by giving information or conforming, religious oppression stops…To the contrary, that gives the impression that the more pressure is applied, the more you will give. It is an endless process.
It is important to remember systematically subjecting an individual to maltreatment is intended to destroy their personality, their sense of identity, their confidence and their ability to function. When we don’t convey or openly share who we are, then those attempting to change us are at a disadvantage. In the case of forced conversion, this is more difficult. It is easier to comply and do as is expected, but it never ends there.
For those that wish to enforce laws, which disempower women of all races with the purpose of enabling immediate gratification for the opposite gender under religious pretences, submission is the key to victory. If an individual does not comply and continues to fight, regardless of how excessive the punishment may become, there is often no other choice than to kill them. However, when there is a scarcity of women, creating a martyr can have side-effects. The more martyrs are created in the name of a just cause, the more follow suit. It should be noted here that life-threatening circumstances can break brainwashing as much as it can reinforce it.
Starvation: In muslim countries, it is common practice to deprive Christians of more than the bare essentials to force their religious conversion to Islam. Often, they are treated worse than African-American slaves, as a result of their religious orientation. Whereas black slaves could sing, practice their own religion and even build families with their own kind, Islam does not allow their slaves to have any of the above. In fact, life-threatening maltreatment is encouraged to force women to convert in the hope that they’ll be abused less frequently.
People die from starvation and prolonged malnutrition every day… In an age, where food waste is prevalent, most are not familiar with how starvation affects mental processes. Most that have experienced anything remotely similar often look at the way we live with disgust. Internally, they fear that they’ll return to their former living conditions, which could easily lead to a very painful death. Only a small percentage would suffer through such an ordeal again without being willing to do anything to avert such a fate.
First of all, it takes a great deal of strength as well as self-control to starve, when there is the illusion of an alternative… After not having eaten for days, the mere sight, smell or sound of food yields psycho-physical reactions, as if a deep, silent rage is brewing on the inside. Hatred for those depriving you, when they have plenty to share, can seem like the only thing keeping you alive. Without that feeling, people often give up… They reach a point, when don’t merely lose hope, they lose something that can’t be regained without years of trauma recovery.
It takes approx. 65 days to die from starvation as long as you keep hydrated. When water is scarce, that time can be halved easily. Without any resources, an individual can survive from 22-26 days without any sustenance. In countries, such as India, it is permitted to end one’s life through a holy fast when spiritual liberation in this life is no longer possible. As irrelevant as this anecdote may sound, this practice has provided interesting information to answer related research questions. For the average individual, it is almost impossible to refrain from eating after days, when food is put in front of them. For example, after groups of survivors were freed from the KZs in Germany, they were provided with food and water. The problem was that they had been starved to such an extent, their bodies couldn’t process solids anymore. Most of what they ate, they regurgitated…Only a handful survived. Primarily those that were too ill to eat anything survived as they did not consume anything until the second rescue team arrived with a nutritional powder that they stirred into the drinking water. After their bodies had adjusted to digesting the liquid solution that provided the nutrients needed for the nutrient absorption, digesting solids no longer had such devastating effects.
On a separate note, food or drink are often used as tools to taunt people in captivity… Although it is often recommended not to eat or drink anything in captivity, when the body-mind complex has been deprived of sustenance for long enough, there is an inner drive to ingest whatever nutrition is provided. In some cases, prisoners of war have been desperate enough to consume their own urine or even the urine of their captors, when they had no other option. In other words, if you’re hungry or thirsty enough, you’ll consume almost anything edible, as it better than nothing. Restraining yourself from doing that takes a lot of energy initially. Your mind will play tricks on you, as the deprivation elicits extreme emotions. The key is to work through them quietly. Think over every thought that comes to your mind before you utter a single word. More importantly, let painful thoughts go. They won’t lessen your suffering, only perpetuate it.
Not So Crazy Side-Note: The desire to consume food comes from the need for sustenance in the absence of enlightenment. The further one looks into this, one understands that the need for sustenance comes from a deep-desire for self-preservation. The rational mind does not comprehend that physical sustenance is as illusory as our physical reality. It is only necessary as long as we are still on the path to self-realisation. Once we are self-realised, eating and drinking are not only optional, they are restricted to clean, vegetarian choices.
Important Note For Women: Reducing the daily amount of food and water prevents pregnancy and can induce a miscarriage, but it also makes it more likely to give birth to females rather than males, if the pregnancy is carried to term. Feel free to do your own research.
Pain: Discard hope of rescue or religious salvation. Hope is a pipe-dream, when pain becomes unbearable. Thinking clearly becomes impossible, as automatic behaviour takes over. For instance, instinctively speaking in other languages, using religious terms as swear words or praying audibly are prime examples of how we can lose control in ways that may have unfavourable consequences. Escaping pain is impossible by distancing yourself from it, so embrace it. Go beyond like or dislike to a place where none of that matters and pain has no hold on you. Inflicting any kind of pain often involves prolonged time-periods of close, excruciating confinement with no human interaction. Resistance creates tension, which in turn creates more pain… As difficult as it may sound, relax your body. Aim to relax all your muscles and let go of all tension. Let pain be your teacher to attain freedom from suffering.
Whatever happens, the first and most dangerous approach relies on you to go the distance. The closer you let them bring you to death, the more you create a dilemma as to whether you should be saved or not. “Logic dictates that if you aren’t saved, then you have spared yourself a much longer and more painful death. You must, beyond everything, believe in the sanctity of your being to take such an approach. You must be willing to lay your life on the line, from whatever shattered sense of identity you still retain.”
Another approach is to abandon all reasoning. To reduce yourself to a level of instinctual awareness, and try to stay alive. Think nothing. Focus on the breath. Witness every thought as a passing visitor. Do not look to the future, instead empty your mind. “Concentrate only on obtaining oxygen. You will either succumb, or they will deem the operation too high a risk to continue. Again, if they deem you an asset they will not force your death. If they execute you in such a fashion, your execution merely happened early.”
Sleep Deprivation: As the most effective method to break down all mental barriers, sleep deprivation is the cornerstone of warfare. It accompanies almost all forms of torture. Again, resist as little as possible. Throw yourself into disorientation and carry on. It may drive you temporarily insane, but that is still better than the alternatives. You may speak non-sense and see connections that you otherwise wouldn’t, yet as long as you remain at least a little self-aware in a disorientated state, you can minimise the damage.
For those already living near mosques, the loudspeakers echoing across entire street-blocks are just an example of how openly fanatical religious practices can intrude on the day-to-day lives of others without them patrolling the streets. Merely a week of coping with nightly sleep deprivation takes its toll on the mind. After several weeks, things begin to get blurry… Now, imagine that taking part is no longer optional. Imagine that your life depends on cooperating (with a religious institution that you have no respect for). Think of the stress created by physical violence and forced conversion in addition to extreme deprivation as the go-to strategy for Islam. Preying on basic needs by driving a thumbnail into the instinct for self-preservation is common behaviour, as it has worked for thousands of years. The only means to render such warfare strategies useless is to overcome any hold that our basic needs have on us.
The requirement to sleep is the most difficult to work with. The more relaxed we are, the less we are plagued by the need to sleep… Maintaining mental and physical silence greatly assists this process. Also, increased bodily awareness to release tension conserves small amount of energy, which encourages vasodilation, in turn improving circulation.
Isolation: Any form of deprivation is worsened in social isolation. With multiple captors and a single victim, the captive often feels more isolated than in one-on-one situations. As women are frequently kidnapped by religious fanatics and held in groups, it is important to note that every captive will eventually reach a point when converting seems like the only thing that could end their suffering, apart from death. This option seems more ‘acceptable’, as other captives convert. However, as stated previously, subjecting to their will becomes an endless, downward spiral. Pray silently. Speak to yourself. Do whatever is necessary to maintain your sanity, but ensure that you do it quietly in your mind without anyone finding out about it…
Extremes of Heat & Cold: The idea of embracing hopelessness and using your own fatalism to your advantage is only one approach to defend yourself against the temperature extremes. An Eastern method involves the use of Zen meditation, which represents the best solution to endure prolonged extremes of heat. As a coping mechanism for someone locked in a deep freeze, it doesn’t work, because slowing down anything in your body could be suicide. If enough space is provided, the best answer to extreme cold would be to never stop moving. If this is not possible, singing a song or praying has been said to help victims in the past. The abuse of prisoners with extremes of heat and cold illustrates how different situations warrant different methods for holding on.
We often perceive death as the opposite of an explainable mystery. Death is not a cool puzzle designed to be solved, as long as it is depict as eternal nothingness. We only fade into nothingness, when our mind is empty, when our conscious, our unconscious and our collective consciousness has merged…when there are no more desires to be fulfilled as they have all been extinguished.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. Nothing truly dies…We always come back, and as soon as we realise this, we can choose to remember. Death is the process of consciousness transmigration that occurs when self-realisation has not yet occurred. In truth, we live, we die and we come back to repeat the cycle. Those that remember consciously display signs of what clinical psychologists refer to as delusions of grandeur…However, in the higher echelons of society, it is a well-established fact, which is carefully concealed from those that don’t know what they’re meant to be looking for.
Appearances are deceiving…We do not exist in a singular, solid form. In truth, we are formless. Our consciousness, which is the spirit of all existent and non-existent things, is Light. It is the light that shines across the whole of space-time from prior to the multiverse itself.
Light is Love. Light is Peace. Light is Knowledge…
And last but not least, Light is Existence.
Truth be told, we are at war. The hoardes of men that travel across the seven seas are strategically distributing themselves across the world… They do not seek multicultural diversity or refuge, they wish to establish their own ideology without the freedom of choice. Liberty is being engulfed by darkness, but light will always shine through. Who we are to them is irrelevant. Who we are to our leaders is irrelevant. Who we are and how we are perceived is but a passing phase. Our identity doesn’t change, simply because it is demanded of us. Our immortal soul is who we are on the surface of the cosmos, but who we truly are underneath is beyond description or even the concept of immortality. It is prior to the determining factors of our self-consciousness or individuality…
“Mathematically, the probability of consciousness ending is zero.” (Lipton, Bruce) Consciousness is the basis of existence. Furthermore, there is a reason it is often perceived to be without beginning or end. For the purpose of explaining something that is beyond thought and language, that which existed prior to space-time is often playfully described as nothingness or a void of cosmic oneness. However, it is not for those that have experienced anything close to such an indescribable concept…It is pure being. The essence of which pervades all.
You May Like To Read:
Disclaimer: This is entirely theoretical thought experiment. We do not take any responsibility for actions carried out as a result of this post.
The only means to prevent White, Black, Indian and Asian genocide is position oneself in front of the wave of violence that is about to hit and create a ripple that alters its course. World War is brewing across Europe, only a small spark is needed to light an already gasoline-drenched fuse…
When one massacre after the other, involving over 200 people, are silently suppressed, then the only means to start a war in one swift movement is to double, if not triple, the body-count.
Mosques have been targeted all over Europe, but the MO was disorganised. More often than not, their timing was off and the damage wrought was insufficient… These were not attacks that would do anything other than antagonise without casualties. In a Jihad, that’s dangerous, stupid and ill-advised. Either do or don’t, there is no in-between when it comes to warfare.
There is no putting bacon on a handle or committing minor acts of vandalism to an empty building without jail-time, but once a crime sparks a war…It is no longer a simple crime, it becomes an act of war in itself. That is not police territory, unless they catch the perpetrator first. Commonly, it is the military that concerns itself with war-crimes, and historically they do not relinquish custody of a prisoner to law enforcement during times of war, if they turn themselves in. There are even numerous occasions, in which all military and civilians violent offenders were then used to combat the enemy.
This begs the question, when does a crime in the age of terrorism escalate into war? When an enemy is lured into pre-emptively starting their takeover and they do not possess the self-control to wait any longer due to the severity of a single wave of attacks.
Theoretically, one could start a war overnight. In fact, there is no way to know where or how the next war will start. It could be in a mosque, in a no-go zone or with a door-to-door massacre. Which side starts the coming war is determined by who makes the boldest move first. If they slaughter 200 of civilians in France, it’s terrorism. If one were to slaughter 200 of their violent offenders in the same way, it’d be an open declaration of war against the religion. In theory, killing an indiscriminate amount that rivals their worst attack yet would start WW3 with minimal effort and manpower at a random location. No prison or custody cell at a police station could defend against attempts to get retribution. The only protection that could be provided for perpetrators of war-crimes, once things escalate to this level, is at the nearest fortified military location or underground bunker.
What is the cost of living the way that we do? What is the price that each of us pay for our modern lifestyle? A death-orientated culture that obscures the process of dying on every level. A culture, which operates in carefully guarded layers of information that rarely interact with one another. They intersect only when the walls between worlds crumble. (No, not the quantum vacuum, but the walls we erected in our society to separate classes of people.)
As one layer of society inherently lacks the understanding of what death actually is, the one above only has limited knowledge of its nature. Only the highest echalons of our society understands Death is not the great destroyer of the self or the gateway to heaven/ paradise… It is a mere transmigration of consciousness. Contrary to popular belief, our ego doesn’t simply melt away, it accompanies us. Our every desire remains, even our attachments and aversions. We are exactly the same as we were, plus the experience that delivered us to the hereafter. There, the illusion of space-time persists, only on a sub-domain of the continuum at a fragment of the regular pace. Eventually, we return. Not because of some divine force, but as a consequence of our own actions.
Our Leaders Are Expendable
We know that we do not control this world. We also know that those in control have no interest in our well-being. Whereas some of us deny this relative truth, others have dedicated their life to rectifying this injustice. Few of us understand and forgive the elite that lingers beneath the shadows. A mere handful know that there’s an elite behind the elite…even fewer realise that they brought the war to us for their own purposes. We are the equivalent of pawns on a chess-board to them. Our political leaders are equally as unimportant to them. Merkel, Clinton, Johnson, Abbott, Khan and Corbyn are simply a different class of pawn. They exist merely to serve an agenda, which know less than a fragment of… They know that their power can be stripped from them in a matter of minutes, hence they know better than to play by their own rules.
Although men, such as Sadiq Khan, play both sides, he is only one of a dozen key-pawns used to seize power on behalf of Islam. It is doubtful that they’ll actually keep their promise to make him the caliphate of London. A religious practice has yet to keep their word and fail to execute their double-agents, if even they were the most loyal of servants. Their time is as numbered as ours, only we know that it is. They’ll most likely become more vicious, the more the realisation dawns…which could also be said about every left-wing leader.
When leaders such as Corbyn gain power, it is not through popularity…It is to break the upper hand of the people through force. He wishes to flood the country with economic migrants, in exchange for power. However, as delusional and disassociated from reality as Corbyn is, he will not get far. That does not mean he won’t inflict almost irreparable damage to the United Kingdom, but not more than Merkel before mass-upheaval almost created a lynch-mob
The peoples threshold for self-serving public figures is carefully measured. Their destructive plan never unfolds all at once, that’d fuel a revolution… A patient, meticulous sadist has all the time in the world to inflict their suffering. There is no hurry. What our leaders don’t understand is that they are just as expendable. As soon as they fulfil their purpose and cannot be used to fulfil another, they are pushed aside. Some live out their days, whereas others are sacrificed to appease the public… It’s all the same to the powers that be. They couldn’t care less either way. To them, not having to sacrifice a pawn simply means they may have some use to keep the game going. Otherwise, they are always more pawns to recruit.
We live in a multi-cultural world, where political correctness was designed to maintain a level of mutual respect and understanding. However, when our beliefs don’t quite fit into the establishment, they can indicate distrust or even disrespect…but even when a part of the global establishment embraces those beliefs, in other parts of the world those beliefs are not acceptable. Regardless of what we believe, as long as we do not abuse our beliefs to justify acts of violence, we are entitled to the level of religious freedom that enables us to pursue self-realisation through whichever religion. (It should be noted that violence takes many forms: physical, emotional, mental, spiritual/religious etc. This also includes neglect, which is defined as the failure to care for those aspects)
Although countless of athiest keep an open mind toward the spiritual, many are rather nihilistic toward the subject…To the point, where they cannot maintain ‘normal’ relationships with spiritual and/or religious practitioners of any kind. This is not an uncommon phenomenon, where any faith or lack thereof is concerned. We feel annoyed or resentful, when others display a certain disregard toward what we think or feel, but that should not mean we have to change our entire belief system to accommodate them. Any philosophical or mental construct, even peace, can be perceived as an insult, dependent on the situation.
On a related note, we all have an acquaintance or two that we avoid theological conversations with. No matter how hard we try, we often agree to disagree. However, for as long as neither party is forced to submit to the beliefs of the other, there can be a modicum of freedom.
We only have collective freedom of expression, as long as we display compassion, when our opinions or beliefs are questioned… After all, verbal or physical aggression has never turned anyone into a true believer. Conversely, unquestioning submission to a belief, particularly when forced, cannot bring peace. It can never lead us to the truth. Moreover, without occasionally pushing the boundaries of religion or spirituality, where would be the development? How could we strive to attain higher levels of experiential knowledge?
This leads us to the question, why are some so easily offended, when others do not share their beliefs or outright deny their possible merits? (1.) Desire (2.) Attachment (3.) Ignorance
(1.) Desire: When we do not share our beliefs with another, it can put a strain on the relationship from the word go. Their priorities often wildly differ from our own. However, in life, we are bound to desire acceptance, unless we understand that not everyone can or will accept us. If we do not understand this, then we are far more likely to attempt to change others or ourselves to gain social acceptance. Although such desires do not have to be self-serving. They are only rooted in good intentions in rare cases, but especially then it is of profound importance to maintain boundaries and respect that others muse learn to make their own decision. It is not our right to choose for them.
Being accepted comes from showing acceptance without causing physical and/or psychological harm in the process. Without the aim to control or dominate. However, if we cannot accept ourselves, how can we accept anyone else?
In numerous cultures, women are perceived as second-class citizens. Saudi Arabia and now Pakistan, for instance. In addition, they are held responsible for the actions of men around them. In reoccurring textbook examples of abuse, they are held liable for the desire they inflame, which frequently leads to sexual assault. Upon rejection of romantic or sexual advances, they are scolded with sulfuric acid or even burnt alive, as a disincentive for other women. This serves as a means to show them what may happen to them should they refuse to comply. Fear becomes the ultimate weapon of control to fulfil mens worldly desires reinforced through a system of oppressive religious laws that currently strives for global domination.
(2.) Attachment: When we cling to faith, as if it was a life-raft, there is going to be a conflict of interest. Not everyone will want to float on it with us. Our attachment to religious or spiritual beliefs may enable one person to get through the day, but other people may not feel the same way. I’ve encountered plenty of men, women and children that do not share the same beliefs as their relatives. Some weep and pray for their souls still, as they cannot bear the notions that they will not share a place in the afterlife with their loved ones (which is simply not true, but their expectations can make it so!)
When we love unconditionally, all we long for is happiness, regardless of what shape it may take. For what it is worth, they could worship Lucifer, the Light-Bringer or former Sun-God, and we would let them get on with it. (as long as there is no animal or human sacrifice) For as long as they are free and happy to make their own choices, we are content to let them be. That is the difference between love and attachment. True love depends on non-interference without the urge for the object/subject of our affection to satisfy our needs and wants.
(3.) Ignorance: Our lack of knowledge always becomes the source of someone else’s power to do with as they please. It is the cornerstone of inequality, fear and hatred.
It is the ignorance of our true nature that prevents us from realising that we are all connected, no matter what we believe. For as long as kindness and open-mindedness is not an integral aspect of our religious practices, they can never bear any other fruit than resentment. When we perceive others as an extension of our own self, we cannot see them for who they truly are: a vibrant, unique part of a greater whole that we are also a part of. By harming them, we only harm ourselves. By liberating them, we can liberate ourselves. Ignorance is a grave betrayal to our spiritual/religious beliefs, as it leads us to view ourselves as seperate from our fellow man. Worst case scenario, it fuels our ego to the point where we view our beliefs superior to theirs…
Ignorance may be bliss for a while, but eventually it leads to immense suffering, when everything comes crashing down…when we have no choice other than to accept the reality that we’ve been denying all along. As is stated in the Upanishads, human beings cannot live without challenges. They cannot live without meaning. We are driven by a deep, inner urge to achieve the impossible, to know the unknown, to shed any and all ignorance in order to arrive at the Absolute Truth
Thou Art That🌹
There’s a place in a galaxy far in the distance, secretly hidden behind a dark Nebula in the shape of a Horsehead (if you stare at it long enough)…A planet that was once filled with lush, green forests and fields that stretched on for continents. This was a place, where the people lived in harmony with nature under the Gods of Old. Yet, every now and again, a shadow would fall over the land, as the rulers of the land sent forth the Giants, reducing the uncontrolled growth of the global population. Over the generations, the people grew dissatisfied and rose up against this culture of violence. They had grown weary of fear and drove their Gods into the mountains, where some of them have remained until this day. Others fled into the surrounding areas of the cosmos, watching from afar, waiting…
As more time passed, we began to forget year by year. A handful of enlightened spirits returned again and again. In every age, they guided humanity away from its new shadow leaders to freedom.
The wise know all too well that every species undergoes events of natural destruction, either brought on by the cosmos or themselves. The time is approaching for another such event to take place, yet it has not been engineered by aliens or galactic forces, but a minority of our own people. Every man, woman and child will have to fight for their very survival, but sadly a majority of them will be unprepared. Political leaders that are mere puppets to the powers that be will induce the downfall of our modern global civilisation… There will be a gruesome battle across the Mediterranean, as invaders will lay siege against the Vatican. All will be destroyed, before invaders will break through to its secrets vaults. Yet, nothing will be lost. Not only the Akashic Records carry this information that can be accessed from anywhere, copies will also remain on Earth held by only a small elite.
In the view of a sadistic, narcissistic psychopath, the freedom you hold is an illusion that they have created to pacify you. Yet, they rely on the attachments that you have formed in the world. Your family, friends and every single one of your needs as well as desires makes you vulnerable, since they can easily be controlled or even replaced with toxic substances that make you even more reliant on their costly medical care. From the moment of birth, we not only repeat a cycle of birth and death…They ensure that few shall never break free.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a process of continued assimilation through violence and silent genocide. Your life is in the hands of people that you may not even believe exist…People that laugh at how many wholeheartedly believe they are free in a world where freedom is illegal. If this possibility does not scare us, or does not validate further investigation, then our ignorance of the world, we live in, may become a prison that we cannot escape from.
However, if we become so afraid of losing that we never try, we shall never dare to win. Spiritually speaking, if we are pure of heart, then all we can do is win, even if we suffer seemingly irreconcilable losses. One of the most important truths that we have forgotten is the power of our being. The power that any ordinary person can change the world.
In a world, where what you believe is designed to serve a carefully thought-out purpose, believe nothing and question everything. Be kind, but do not destroy yourself. Honour the essence of your being and trust that there are higher powers at work, which can never be harnessed through dark deeds or for dark purposes.
How can we be certain that our eyes do not deceive us, as they so often do? How can we be sure that what our senses tell us is actually real? And how can we trust anyone that simply dismisses such enquiries, when others wholeheartedly believe they already know the truth? In short, we cannot.
When we trust, we are taking a leap of faith. We extend a curtesy to a stranger that may be our salvation as much as they may be our undoing. If it goes horribly wrong, you can be certain that you’ll be reminded of the fact often enough… If it doesn’t, many will make certain that you know it should have done. On reflection, one cannot win nor lose, only learn from experience.
When circumstances feel as if they’re turning into the surreal, like the current political situation…We can be guaranteed that our intuition will lead the way to the truth, as long as we don’t live in a world of wishful thinking. No matter, for as long as we cannot see our internal and external reality for what it is, we may never realise the truth… In fact, our view of reality is more likely to shatter into countless pieces than be reconciled with the bigger picture.
Although we may never truly know anyone, we cannot spend our lives in distrust for something that has happened or might happen. We must learn to live in the present moment, if we wish to know the truth about our multi-dimensional reality, in which time is a mere sequence of moments interpreted by our consciousness. On a deeper level, time represents change. (In Sanskrit, they even share the same word.) This leads us to the question, how can something feel real, when in truth it is not?
Our senses can trick us into believing almost anything. Therefore, it is our responsibility to apply critical thinking to discern the real from the unreal. That being said, there is a simple rule, when questioning reality: If it is finite, it cannot be infinite. (Its source may be, but the object and/or subject is not) This rule of thumb makes things easier, but it can still be very confusing when putting theory into practice. In other words, that which is real cannot be manifest in relative existence, outside of the realm of self-realisation. Conversely, that which is unreal cannot be manifest in the absolute, or ultimate, reality.
For what it’s worth, religion may guide you in your search for deeper meaning, but it cannot lead you to enlightenment via a path that has been taken by others. Only a handful of practices are common denominators shared by all enlightened spiritual teachers, which are deep contemplation, meditative concentration and gratitude. The path to self-realisation is uniquely tailored to you. You cannot walk it in the footsteps of another or in honour of an ideal that was corrupted long ago.
Beyond ego and appearance, we are all one in heart, mind and spirit…We originate from the same source. Regardless of our religious traditions or personal beliefs, we share a universal spirit that has its roots in pure consciousness.
Sat Nam 💋
In modern times, we have an inaccurate understanding of just about everything…community, family, education, religion and so forth. We also no longer understand the teachings of the ancient Gods. Although many that have taken the time to read, translate and/or re-interpret old scripture will realise that this paves the way to ‘natural destruction’, there is always another path…
“You are not your body.”
What all the corporations around the globe focus on is how to manipulate your body-image…How to best play on your attachments and aversions. If there’s an inch of your body that you’re self-conscious about, they won’t teach you how to overcome it, since it would make them powerless against you.
Like any narcissistic psychopath, they bet on the fact that you’ll run scared into their arms, if they manipulate all your resources to create disease and eliminate all the competition. However, that which they cannot control is that which they have invested trillions into suppressing…and that’s your way out of this endless loop.
Their weakness is the same thing with which they are attempting to retain control: Ignorance, Blind Faith & Unquestioning Submission. For as long as you do not question the world around you, none of us can reshape this world into something greater. More importantly, none of us will ever find the whole truth.
To those with money, your body is an accessory that you’ll spend an infinite amount of finances to maintain, if you had the resources, but even if you don’t…The charities that you donate to funnel all the money, they receive, as far away from solving global problems as possible. In other words, you are being conned, ladies and gentlemen…and you have been for over a century.
The longest running con is religion, followed by money. If you believe in God, Allah or Abraham in Heaven, then you most likely never read the old texts too closely. The Gods we worship live in the Heavens, just not the ethereal plane that we visit before reincarnation/rebirth. In truth, they are as Alien to this planet now as we are, although they created it, but that’s beside the point…
My point is that we continue to proganitate an inaccurate perception of the body, which is becoming more unrealistic with every generation. In truth, that body is only a fragment of the cosmic body of consciousness that doesn’t actually exist in the manner that we currently perceive it. Existential debates aside, every cell in the body is inherently connected to an all-pervading awareness that goes deeper than the phenomenal world. It is noumenal in essence.
Noumenon: According to Shamanic, Indian and Kant’s philosophy, the term ‘noumenon’ refers to a thing as it is in itself, not perceived or interpreted, incapable of being known, but only inferred from the nature of experience.
This is not to say that you cannot know your body, but by knowing the true source of your body, you needn’t know any more… In fact, there’s nothing to know about something that never was, but the ego can easily get in the way of understanding this reality of the self. Your individual self is no different from the universal self, and until you realise this, you will continue to differentiate between your body and the cosmos. In terms of self-awareness, this dooms you to seemingly endless suffering that no one but you can alleviate.
“You are not your mind.”
When I first turned 18, I was given the most valuable lesson in my entire life: Whatever you think you know is wrong. Everything you have been taught is a lie. So, question everything from every angle, even if you’ll never prove a damned thing!
Approx. 95% of all conditions are psychosomatic… The rest are debatably environmental. The reason I insist that their origin is debatable is the same reason that hinders us from adapting more efficiently to man-made environmental changes. At a certain stage of consciousness development, an environment such as ours no longer has an effect on the body-mind complex… Full consciousness realisation overcomes all things, even death. (Yeah, I’m a mind over matter crackpot lol) That being said, I’d never ask you to believe anyone’s word without proof, so please I welcome you to embark on your own journey to higher knowledge…and don’t stop until you can conclusively prove otherwise with physical evidence! (Good Luck)
Our comprehension of sanity, or even mental health, is insanity in disguise. In any other location of the universe, we could not survive or assimilate with this current mentality… (This is one of the reasons we are forbidden from colonising space, also why only very few of us reincarnate on other planets, but that’s a story for another time) By creating layers upon layers of false information, enlightenment appears almost impossible. Yet, it is not self-realisation that has become more difficult, it is the survival of the physical body throughout the journey. The people of India understand that a sattvic diet (strictly vegetarian or vegan) is not challenging for those with money and self-control, but it is costly and harmful for those that live in poverty. Many starve themselves in order not to harm any living being. However, in so doing, they are harming themselves… Hundreds of thousands suffer from the effects of malnutrition and subsequently disease, which represents an one of countless obstacles to enlightenment.
One-pointedness is the single, underlying principle that can become an antidote for any obstacle. With one-pointedness of mind, no obstacle can hinder or distract the mind. Truth be told, if an object or individual cannot distract you, they’re less likely to interfere, yet that does not mean they won’t hinder you. If you cannot be distracted from self-realisation, you’ll often develop blank-spots. Old teachings describe this behaviour as a manifestion of ignorance as well as unconsciousness, but basically they’re saying you have an aversion and/or attachment that you need to confront. For example, many spiritual teachers speak of Islam as a peaceful religion, when the empirical evidence of their imperial conquests (repeatedly documented throughout recorded history) prove otherwise. The foundation of Islam and the path to Allah can function as a gate to self-realisation, but only if you get passed all the religion. It is the same with almost every mainstream faith, while it preys on the vulnerable in search of deeper meaning.
There can be no love or peace without truth. So, where there is a shostage of honesty, ignorance, apathy and lack of understanding prevails. Moreover, political correctness has karmic repercussions. It perpetuates an inner conflict between your conscious and unconscious mind. Your collective unconscious knows the truth. Yet, for as long as you deny it, you’ll never go beyond the surface. An enlightened or a true leader would never utter words that would endanger what they perceive as a part of themselves, they would strive to show them the reality prior to (the multi-verse).
For right-wing readers, you are at one with your enemy. Whatever beliefs you may hold, everything is interconnected. Every event. All that was, is and will be. Every object and person. EVERYTHING that you can conceive with your minds. Prior to all this molecular interconnectedness, all is one. So, beyond all misconceptions, frustration and tension, you are free. Always have been. Always will be. Only through this knowledge can one do battle properly.
For left-wing readers, save your breach. I am indifferent to them. All you are doing is disturbing your inner peace and disrupting your path to self-awareness by perpetuating the suffering of others. Go do something productive like save Corbyn from self-destruction. Until that point, every moment that you continue to deny the rape culture, which has festered for decades right on your doorstep, will lead others to feel more apathy to your suffering than you can imagine. You are proactively going out of your way to injure victims of violent crime, so just stop. For the love of all that is decent, please just fucking stop…
“You’re not your emotions.”
I probably have caused some offence by now…So, I’m wholeheartedly apologetic, if I’m the first to be telling you all this. It should have been taught as a part of theoretical philosophy in primary school, but unfortunately we stopped educating future generations to do more than follow without question. (Pokemon Go, anyone?) For what it’s worth, if you reflect on what exactly rawed you up, it won’t be so easy next time. A lesson most are forced to learn the hard way.
If we are not our emotions, what are they? In quantum physics, emotions represent a subtle energies that are often transferred. When we’re angry, we project negative energy onto others that surpresses our and their immune system. When we’re friendly or kind, we project positive energy that strengthens our immune system and that of our conversational partner. When we’re indifferent, we don’t exchange more energy than necessary from a very minimalistic point of view. In other words, through hate, we relinquish power, strength and health. Through unconditional love/truth, we regain power, health and vitality.
Your emotions are far more powerful than you are led to believe. Many interpret and react to the daily reality of the world according to how it makes them feel, not through cold-hearted reason that defies the modern societal standards of logic. That which many don’t realise is inner, emotional freedom is a key to all forms of freedom. Once you no longer desire (or desire to avoid) anything, you realise the freedom, which is the real you. A freedom that can never be truly forgotten, seized or controlled.
Political correctness is neither honest nor kind. It is even unnecessary and heavily damaging in times, when the absolute is truth called for.
It is rational to be weary of mass migration
Logically thinking, it signals awareness that we do not produce a sufficient quantity of resources to feed, home and clothe our own, so how can we become an idyllic multi-cultural society that provides for everyone?
In recent history, each mass migration from the Middle-East has brought disease, violence and religious conflict. What evidence is there that supports it will be different this time? Apostates across the United Kingdom fear the return of the enforcement of Sharia Law on them. For genuine refugees from Middle-Eastern countries that have integrated in the Western world, mass migration is a sign of impending conflict and war. They fear that which they left behind is coming to get them, and with every denial that anything is wrong, we are showing them that their fears are justified.
When does mass migration become an invasion? Firstly, when they display hostile intent on entry (en masse). This is well illustrated by many border incidents, where individuals were holding signs saying “let us in or die.” Secondly, the fanatical obsessions of migrants in Calais to enter the United Kingdom (when they are already in safe territory) is a tactical manoeuvre that indicates they’re aiming to distribute themselves equally across Europe and maintain a solid presence in every country that is willing to grant them asylum. Thirdly, once a minority expands at such a fast rate that it will become a majority in its host country within a period of 5 years, then mass migration will alter the socio-cultural environment of said country beyond recognition.
We need freedom from the control system that has become religion, not more religious conflict, based on our unique interpretations of reality or our beliefs… Religion used to stand for the divine aspect of man. The fact that if we work hard enough, anything is possible. Religion used to be a science of our relationship with the cosmos, filled with meditation, deep contemplation and consciousness development that yielded great accomplishments, which we still rely upon. Now, religion has become a shadow of its former self. New great followings emerge that are led by the average person, inspired only by their deep faith. Economic migrants police the streets with Sharia, as we attempt to reinforce our Christian rule. With every day, the belief that a clash of cultures is inevitable spreads a little further. With each lie, with each broken promise and with each violent attack, we build more walls to fortify ourselves.
Unfortunately, Merkel opened Pandora’s box. She allowed the Trojan Horse to pass through the gates of Troy, accompanied by armed troops with hostile intent, slaughtering hundreds…Yet, she’s still throwing her entire body-weight into keeping those gates open. In the times of Ancient Greece, she would have been labelled a traitor for her humanitarian, if not self-destructive tendencies…but for what its worth, if Socrates was alive today, he would have been institutionalised as a schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder.
Back to the point, there are no more walls to be built that can protect us from this change. However, statistically, to embrace this level of socio-cultural change will invariably lead to the enforcement of Sharia Law on the major towns and cities in Britain, such as London, Brimingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Lincolnshire etc.
Conversely, if we do not accept their religious laws, religious conflict will be waged in an attempt to enforce their laws. Whichever path we choose from this point forward will incur more blood-shed.
When there is a need enforce foreign customs on others, mass migration becomes invasive.
When there is an agenda behind mass migration, mass migration becomes an invasion.
The war to win over our thoughts, minds, bodies and even our souls has been ongoing for countless decades…and it won’t end anytime soon. However, the reactions to what we say, what we post and what we believe are far more revealing than our stance towards any given issue. Religion is not excluded from this. Although religion is a constant source of conflict, it is not religion that is the issue. It is our attitude towards it. Religion is freedom, which means that we must all find our own path to enlightenment and live with the moral consequences of our choices.
However, there far are more important issues at hand than a global crisis of faith… As our nations are arming up for war, unequal resource distribution is still running rampant. The little resources that we have are provided to economic migrants, while our own citizens are subject to poverty, starvation, sexual exploitation and exposure to the elements.
Any decent counsellor, therapist or doctor will confirm that silence is deadly, especially where hate crimes are concerned. Many homosexuals, transgenders, feminists and African-Americans can attest to the fact that they were punished violently for their life choices. Back then, most looked the other way. Now, these abhorrent hate-crimes have returned to our streets. Ironically, they highlight exactly what happens when a non-believer enters a Muslim country. The punishments sanctioned by law favours the dominant religion, as ours did for countless centuries. We are not accepting their religious laws, as our own, they are forcing them onto us, which is a crime against religious freedom.
No matter how many religious and/or spiritual practitioners adhere to peace, as long as they remain silent, the height of their numbers (and therefore influence) is irrelevant. They are complicit in crimes against humanity, dare I say, war-crimes (genocide) at the highest levels. If they were truly peaceful practitioners of Islam, as they claim, they would die beside us. They would throw themselves in front of extremists, as any good Christian, Buddhist or Hindu should, defending against an impending terror attack. In other words, the strong protect the weak, otherwise what is the use of their strength? They obviously are not strong enough to maintain their own integrity, if their superiority-complex prevents them from doing the right thing.
We don’t need money, power or influence to stand up for our families, our communities and our way of life. All we need is a little courage with a plan of action. The instant that we allow ourselves to be trapped in this web of political correctness, we are sacrificing the truth for the sake of getting along with an oppressive ideology, reinforced by law enforcement officials that once had our complete trust.
For what it’s worth, countless women are being raped daily all over Europe, which means that over half will experience at least one or two more sexual assaults throughout their lifetimes, if not slavery. Their fathers, brothers and husbands may have been offended a few hundred years ago, nowadays many of my clients report that the men in their lives are almost immune to this method of warfare. Their egos are not as easily damaged by such a violent crime, but they are easily led to expect women to ‘get over it’ in a period of 3-6 months, otherwise they often meet their needs elsewhere…and the common populous wonders why humanity is facing several extinction level events.
What May The Future Hold
In this world, anything is possible. Anyone can get away with anything at the right time under the right circumstances… There is only one slight problem with that. Diversity is paving the way to the enslavement of woman. We are expected to show respect and restrain ourselves toward an entirely different culture, when it is almost impossible to be repaid in kind at the best of times (by any culture). So, with every passing day, the nail of political correctness is hammered into the coffin of our Western civilisation….
Contrary to popular belief, Imams across the globe take orders from the same people that control our leaders from behind the scenes. Yet, neither one of us pays this the attention it deserves. Complaining, rape and retaliation are easier methods than to confront that everything we have been told is a lie. Lies that can inadvertently lead us to the truth about all things, whether you believe it or not.
…Truth be told, if Islam continues on its path of world domination, they will drive humanity into extinction. Every race (i.e. white, black, Asian, Arab, Feline, K9 etc.) will experience a significant reduction in numbers. This concerns humans, animals and plants alike, until there’ll be nothing left.
…Truth be told, if mankind continues on its path of planetary exploitation, whatever is above ground will be driven into extinction. Followed by one mass animal extinction after the other, the environment will have irreversibly changed. The plants and animals that survive will be as toxic to us as the atmosphere, the seas and the oceans, until the planet is no longer habitable by our standards.
…Truth be told, if Islam and the Sixth Mass extinction continue on their path unhindered. Chances are worlds will collide with high casualty rates. It is expected that less than a hundred million (if that) would survive above ground.
Liberty Died With Thunderous Applause
Many of the people that I’m in contact with have woken up to the police at their door, others had their articles pulled… The West is evidently no longer a safe place to express our opinion, unless we are prepared to possibly meet a bloody end by doing so. The choice is ours, but we can be guaranteed that our government or law enforcement will continue to support peadophilia, sexual and religious violence. The worst thing is that with every victim that is silenced, we are creating members of society that will not blink an eye, if violent crimes are committed. No one cared when it happened to them, so why should they care, if it happens to anybody else? However, what they’re actually dealing with is feelings of shame, guilt and emotional pain that are fuelling their own self-loathing, which is then projected onto others that have experienced the same. For most unsupported victims, that is normal. Being abandoned has become normal. For an even smaller amount, giving up on life is easier than living with the daily reminders of the incident.
For the most part, sexually abused women loose the ability to trust, when their support networks vanish into thin air. Dependent on the circumstances, in which the assault took place, many women become numb on the inside. They seek to move on, but they can’t feel anything anymore…and no one cares. There is no magic pill or quick solution, only self-realisation can lead to the cessation of suffering for them now.
As the globe keeps turning, their trauma is forgotten by those around them for its disenfranchised nature. I’ve shed too many tears over the travesty of this, but sadly wet eyes don’t change a thing. Only hard work with persistence has the potential to change how much we suffer. Even then, months after an attack, people simply disconnect, because ‘you’re still on about the same thing’. They lack the understanding that sexual violence leaves deep scars that affect personality development, self-image and capacity for empathy. Later on in life, it even has an impact on child-rearing. In reality, women that condone such events won’t lift a hand when it happens to their offsprings, as the social system in Great Britain and Europe taught me repeatedly. Many relatives would rather shift blame or stay away than to assist in the healing process. However, this is only partly their responsibility. Our society does not teach our offsprings how to effectively cope with trauma, which leaves the majority of us vulnerable to a myriad ways of suffering.
What To Do
Every man, woman and child in every country is affected by the current religious struggle for power. Yet, religious leaders are only too aware that the status of their religion is dependent upon the numbers as well as the dedication of their followers. Whatever opposes them can easily be overcome by increasing the former. Here’s what’s inevitably going to happen:
– Islam will aim to establish itself as the majority in France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
– Any country, in which they successfully establish themselves will serve as their primary base of invasion for neighbouring countries, such as Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Hungary and the entire Mediterranean.
– Islam is currently fully surrounding Europe by attempting to seize the whole of Africa.
– By October 2016, the events in Europe will escalate concordant to pre-arranged election dates. The probability that conflicts will escalate in several countries simultaneously is higher than another wave of attacks across European nations.
– Many believe there’ll be a war by December 2016…That Christmas will be celebrated on the run or in hiding. The decorations, if there will be any, will incite fear of attack and religious hatred. However, there is also a great deal of hope that they won’t choose the coldest months of the years to kickstart a war.
The only way to stop a malignant narcissist with sadistic tendencies is to deprive them of that which they desire. Never to yield. Never to surrender…and never to relinquish your personal power. Narcissists don’t take responsibility for their actions, unless forced into the position. They will resort to all kinds of manipulation, such as shifting blame, shaming and complete denial. Their ego will not allow them to realise their mistakes or feel the horror behind what they’ve done, otherwise who they are would be shattered.
Sharia law has become the enablers code for peadophilies and sexual offenders across the world. It allows men to shame women and humiliate them at every step, even beat them publicly whenever they deem just. This elicits submission to prevent further punishment, as a rather dark by-product of the instinct for self-preservation. In addition, women that speak against Islam are being labelled as Islamophobic, as if our right to free speech is disregarded, when it comes down to an oppressive religious regime that does not recognise women as human.
A narcissist does not see a difference between you and them. For them, you are an extension of them. You serve their needs and they don’t have to serve yours, because their needs are more important. Their mere presence should be enough to entice you into bending over backwards. A malignant narcissist is not so different, but they are far more likely to harm and even destroy the object of their affections. If they cannot have it, no one will. On mass, this is a recipe for disaster, hence the female population in the Middle-East reaches a desperate low-point every few decades, and they are forced to ‘branch out’. When coupled with sadistic tendencies, female genocide becomes routine, simply to maintain control… Islam does not seek support from the West, they seek its submission to their religion. For women and children, that means we will be vulnerable every day until something changes or we will be forced to live by their views. Sadists seek to turn those around them into sadomasochists… In sexual relationships, this entails a form of continuous torment that the mind cannot protect against, if unprepared. Women are often not taught how to protect against pregnancy or induce a miscarriage without self-harming. So, they become breeding-machines in captivity that gradually dwindle into suicidal ideation. (Fasting or a hunger-strike often induces a miscarriage, which should be mentioned is prohibited in Islam during pregnancy, but only if maintained with great self-control.)
For a narcissist, pregnancy is a symbol of ownership. It reinforces their control over the mind, body and spirit of their victim. Worse, in Islam, they often prey on the sentimentality of women by counting on the fact that they will develop an emotional attachment to become slaves to their male offsprings. Should the head of the house pass away, ownership falls to the oldest, closest male of the family, leaving their women no chance of escape from tyranny.
Tips & Tricks
– Don’t confront a narcissist. Wait until they confront you. Then resist and stand your ground, while exerting an air of confidence.
– When a religious narcissist has their eyes set on attaining a specific goal, they will twist scripture to suit their needs. The easiest tactic against this is to reference their scriptures by the letter and be prepared to prove it. (More often than not, things will get violent long before you have the chance to pull out a book)
– When they profess love and peace but never show it, confront them with verifiable, undeniable facts of religious abuse and/or genocide.
– They’ll talk, but hardly listen, which makes them prone to speak over and interrupt people that do not agree with their viewpoint. If they cut you off every time that you open your mouth, speak in keywords. (Pick the most hard-hitting, relevant word in your response and guaranteed that it’ll elicit a reaction immediately)
What is the concept of religion? Or more importantly, why is it?
Religion has become an all-encompassing system that functions in all essence like a corporation. The Vatican, for example, is an arms stockholder and a bank with great influence in the corporate community. Our modern representation religion has strayed far from its intended purpose…It no longer serves as a voice of reason or compassion, but detachment from the people that it serves. Corruption in any institution can only take hold, if organised elements within it act on delusional beliefs that do not benefit the greater whole. Although many religious scriptures are hardly embodiments of peace or provide more than a handful of useful principles, not all of them have been edited, suppressed or destroyed. Some still offer guidance toward understanding a higher power…an essence that existed prior to this multi-verse.
Prior to civil and/or military action, particularly when the risk of ethnically motivated attacks or retaliation is high, some embassies prefer to quietly withdraw important diplomats and dignitaries. In other words, shits about to hit the fan folks…and the ‘military coup’ in Turkey following Nice is only small evidence of this.
“Can you step back from your own mind and thus understand all things? Giving birth and nourishing, having without possessing, acting with no expectations, leading and not trying to control: this is the supreme virtue.” (Lao Tzu)
We are a diverse, multi-cultural world. We are all a part of a global community that we all help shape…We are one people that cannot be separated by religion, colour, creed or race.
You may worship as you choose, but as soon as you infringe on the religious freedom of others, there’s hell to pay… Equality is a two-sided coin. That means Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Muslims have to respect each other with equal measure. There is no ‘one true religion’…There are only paths to self-realisation. Paths that we should be able to choose freely ourselves, according to what resonates deep within us.
Islam does not differentiate. Like the Christians of old or the Sith…Islamics deal only in absolutes. Since the religious system abandoned concepts that allow critical thinking and independent judgement, it has become a religion of genocide. An archaic, outdated system that still strives to take all things for themselves and rewrite our history to make it theirs.
How long can a religion based on femicide last? How long until there’s only a few hundred thousand women? How long until there’s just a handful? In every religious state, women are prized possessions. Yet, in those that view them as second class citizens, a large majority of women are kills before they even reach the end of puberty. In more civilised areas, they are given to suitors as children and are simply discarded or divorced once they are too old for their acquired tastes. Generally, this happens between the age of 15-16. Approx. 4-6 years after they were forced into a sexual relationship.
In 2013, men outnumbered women on the planet by roughly 58 million, according to the World Bank. In January 2015, men outnumbered women by 60 million. In fact, China has around 50 million more men than women, and India 43 million. This accounts for 76% of the male surplus worldwide. Russia have it totals up as a global excess of 60 million. Countries in the Arabian peninsula are the most unbalanced. (Qatar was is of the most extreme examples, with women making up less than one in four of the population)
Only one year later, this dynamic has radically changed. One year later, men now outnumber women by approx. 110 million, as a result of millions of unnecessary deaths, involving women. (Due to the lack of statistical data in certain countries, this number represents a gross estimate of how the global population has changed from the end of 2015 to the beginning of 2016) This radical shift has many contributing reasons, such as the preference of men over women, which leads to gender selective abortions and female infanticide. However, the root cause behind this worsening gender imbalance, as a whole, is femicide (which includes honour killings, executions, massacres, stonings, beheadings etc.)
In Arab countries, men heavily outnumber women as a control factor. The protocols that women are not permitted to leave their homes unaccompanied were originally intended for the use of religious scripture during wartime. It has no use outside of the Jihad, which leads us to my next point. During an Islamic takeover, women represent the future generations of the enemy. The customs of radical Islam is to rape and kill or force women to breed in captivity. Regardless of their skin-colour or country of origin, the freedom of women is at great risk with the rising influence of Islam over the West.
Before the migrant crisis, every second murder of a woman (in Germany) was committed by a spouse. Every fourth women is suffering from or experienced domestic violence… The migrant crisis is bringing all of this to light by showing us where we are headed, if we do not get our priorities straight. Yes, women have equality in the West, but we still earn less…Our vote is ignored just as intently as that of a man. Worse yet, we are abandoned even by our gender.
Each time we stand up for the religious freedom of Islam, as women, we are betraying our own kind. In other words, we dishonour and disrespect the heritage of every woman, who has come before us. Women, such as Curie and Nightingale, made astonishingly great strikes for womankind, and how have we repaid them? By taking all the freedom that we have fought for, and using it to abolish our democratic rights!
How many women have died to protect the freedom of all women? Not as many as are about to once again.
Historically, each time men outnumber women across the globe, there are socio-economic repercussions. What accounts for this current growing imbalance is the surplus of young, unmarried male migrants. Not to mention that Islamic leaders across the world are encouraging 4+ children. Countries, in which contraception and childlessness are punishable offences, greatly contribute to this massive population growth by adding to numbers that are already unsustainable.
Hypothetical: A friend of mine asked me about a week ago, “what would happen if radical Islam were to take over the planet?” The global number of women would be significantly reduced within less than a year. During the first year of a religious takeover, the casualties would be extremely high. Millions, if not billions would easily lose their lives for being outnumbered from the beginning. In the second, there would be a period of coercing conformity. Again, millions would die for either failing to do so, being unable to and from general maltreatment. Religious commitment can be very much like a compulsion… It wouldn’t matter if they knew that they’d be killing the last woman on Earth, they wouldn’t be able to help themselves. It’s that obsessive compulsive nature and lack of forethought, which could drive the number of (men and) women down to less than a million in very short time. Not to mention the global institutionalisation of peadophilia as well as underage marriage that’d contribute to the death of billions annually. If that level of femicide continued unchecked on a global scale, in less than 3 generations, there would only be a handful of women left…until the point where the majority of men could spend an entire lifetime without ever having laid eyes on a woman.
As stated in one of my earliest posts, an overwhelming majority of women under Sharia Law do not reach the end of puberty. Often they do not reach an age, at which their body can handle pregnancy. Simply because some women menstruate at a younger age does not mean their bodies are equipped to deal with pregnancy. Maturing is a complex process for men and women alike. In fact, the rate of complications is astoundingly high. That notwithstanding, the earliest age to facilitate a pregnancy with a manageable success-rate is 14, but the death-toll in medically unequipped countries is considerable in comparison to the West. As a side-note, in a rape culture, medical services are more equipped to deal with underage pregnancy. Considering the number of 14 year olds that abort or carry the child to term in the United Kingdom is the highest in Europe already without an unrestricted migrant flow.
Benefits Fraud: All over the world, pensioners receive payments without the need to attend the. Jobcentre or Welfare offices on a weekly basis. As decent as that may be for an elderly lady with only one decent working hip, there’s only one problem: Anyone can sneak in, dispose of the body and keep cashing the checks…And this is exactly what has been happening few and far between. Contrary to popular belief in Western societies, as the age of a sex offender goes down the age of the victim goes up. This often does not apply to crimes of opportunity.
Child Abduction: Since the surge of economic migrants, the number of attempted and actual abductions on playgrounds, school properties and the open road have risen exponentially. Do not let your child or teenager go out on their own! And even if you accompany them, anticipate trouble. The current locations to beware of are playgrounds, schools, swimming pools, beaches, hiking paths, mountain walkways and other family destinations.
Younger and older generations need to pull together avert more hate crimes aimed towards women. We are mothers, wives, sisters and daughters…and we need to stand together, because deserve the right to be safe inside our homes and step outside our front door without fear of victimisation…without becoming a target of cultural gender-bias.
Why do all the feminists and anti-feminists either fall silent on the migrant crisis or embrace economic migrants without consideration of the tangible consequences. Is it hateful to close your door to an extortionist, sex offender and/or religious fanatic? No, it is common sense.
It has been a well known fact for many years that we live in a rape culture. However, the migrant crisis has changed the situation to our disadvantage. It has highlighted how exposed women are to sexual misconduct on a daily basis.
What happens when an invading force with an obvious gender bias and known history of genocide expands their territories? History repeats itself. After the war-crimes committed on every single minority known to mankind, white genocide was only a matter of time. That notwithstanding, this article not about our karma. Every culture is at risk. Our very heritage is threatened with extinction from three sides.
Jihad: Despite the endearing efforts of the West to keep the peace by opening their doors and their hearts to the migrant population, no country can sustain the vast numbers that are currently residing and/or successfully head for Europe. Only a small number of families manage to escape for a better life… The large majority of the migrants are single, young men between the ages of 18-25. An army that propagates faster than any other since contraception according to Sharia Law is punishable by death, one might say.
Elite: War of any kind means good business and hefty profits for ‘someone’, particularly if they sell to both sides and purchase the real estate after a bloodbath. However, at least when the cogs of war are manipulated in such a fashion, one may almost have a fighting chance. What we are currently facing is an army, while knife and gun bans are enforced on a trial or permanent basis. The deck is visibly stacked against our favour at each and every turn.
Nature: The Sixth Mass Extinction is creating severe resource shortage. However, our damaging resource production and its unequal distribution is only one factor contributing to civilisation collapse. Temperature fluctuations, natural disasters and so forth.
Throughout recorded history, entire countries have faced shortages of women, which often led them to seek opportunities elsewhere. At times, women were permitted to choose, such as with the Spartans. On other occasions, women were simply raped and forced to breed in captivity. This commonly occurred, when there were underlying reasons behind the before-mentioned lack of women: (1) rare gender-focused disease that ravaged the region (2) preference of boys over girls, hence female offsprings often met a premature death (3) violence & genocide
For example, before Siciliy was invaded, they were a fair-haired and fair-skinned people. After countless women were raped and impregnated, following the invasion, fair-skin, dark hair and blue eyes became a prominent genetic trait from that region. Just like the Spanish exterminated the Tainos, raping the black and Indian women, creating Latinos.
The history of violence against women is a long one, yet there is only one course of events that keeps repeating itself over and over again. Each time, countries under Islamic Law face a massive shortage of women, as a result of executing their own before they have children, they are forced to expand their territories. It should be noted a significant portion of women are killed before they even reach the end of puberty.
“In politics, if something doesn’t go the way you want, shoot someone. It works every time. Just like it did with the London Riots…Just like it’s working now. As long as there’s a patsy, no one cares who’s actually behind it all.”
“Do not impose anything on yourself believing you must behave like a saint. Some rational and intelligent people believe impossible things. They state authentic nonsense and live excruciating conflicts in their refusal to accept the truth. They try to suppress their individuality and so their desires…and in so doing, they distance themselves from everything interesting and thrilling in life, only because it makes them vulnerable.”
Anita B. Sulser P.hD.
This morning I opened up the newspaper and to my surprise…Euthanasia is now administered to sexually abused, chronically ill children around the age of 12, if they feel that they cannot move on with their lives. The article went on to state that many more people are choosing euthanasia as a result of mental illness. As a psychologist, I may be able to shed some light on how to cope and intervene without taking such desperate measures. (Taking my personal history of mistreatment into consideration, I might not be the most objective observer, but at least I speak only the truth.)
If this topic concerns you, I’d like you to know that I understand…I have been where you are. It is easier to be ‘put to sleep’ and simply restart at another time or place, but what lesson are we teaching? What we are basically saying to others and ourselves is “It’s okay that you’re hurt, but since we can’t fix you, how would you like us to assist you in your suicide?” when we should be letting them know that they don’t have to go through this alone…that they don’t have to die, because the world is corrupt and there is little other free support.
Many that fall victim to a sexual predator can’t simply forget or move on, especially children. They no longer view themselves as innocent. Moreover, if the parents push their own responsibility for the abuse onto their child, this can develop into severe identity problems. After less than a year, their view of the world becomes distorted. They begin to feel guilty and undeserving. Many stop speaking, eating and socialising. Every breath they take becomes a reminder of how responsible they were for what happened… The pain, they feel, doesn’t vanish. It festers…but many never say a word for one reason: The majority get hurt for being hurt.
This can occur in countless ways, but most commonly, victims of sexual assault express how these experiences continue to harm them internally, which leads to one of several negative reactions: (a) apathy/cold indifference, (b) dismissal, (c) misplaced rage, (d) misplaced sadness
Many of the people I’ve worked with struggled to make their voices heard initially. When they discuss what they how they feel during recovery, close relatives tended to drift off topic. One minute they’re crying their eyes out about how Uncle Joe bent them over the table, nearly tearing them a new asshole, while the relative that they’re confiding in is too occupied, thinking about how Uncle Joe still owes them a tenner. In my early student years, I despised conducting family therapy for that reason, simply because sometimes there is no happy ending. Some people will never love their children or family members the way they would like them to. With or without the application of force, they probably never will, but telling a survivor that is painful. It pries into a primal fear of abandonment that we all share. No child should be expected to deal with abuse and then neglect, it sets very bad standards and lowers expectations in others from the outset.
None of the responses listed above are rational or even helpful but that has never stopped people. However, before we judge, it’s vital to understand that they don’t know how to cope with the situation. If forced to confront the reality of the situation, they’d shut down, cry hysterically or experience a depressive episode. It should be noted that approx. half have traumatic experiences of their own that they keep bottled up that need to processed first before they can support loved one’s through such tough times.
On a related note, we can all be rather self-centred without meaning to be, when someone we care about shares something to deeply personal. However, when we don’t take them seriously, it can have grave consequences. Particularly, when the tables turn. Many abused children drift apart from friends or relatives that are then later abused…and the first person they call is someone they know who experienced similar. Although what these friends often do not take into consideration is that no half-hearted apology makes up for something like that. In frequency, these friendships were imbalanced from the start. One cared more about the other and less about themselves. Then, the assault occurred and they no longer care about their own life, let alone the problems of the former prom-queen, social butterfly or alpha female of the group.
Post-Traumatic Stress: Dependent on when, where and how an assault takes place is important when it comes down to moving forward. Many survivors struggle to return to their old life. In cases, in which a boyfriend is a part of the equation, recovery can become complicated. Whereas some men are more supportive than others, the subject of sexual intercourse is bound to cause tension, unless there is ample space for open dialogue.
Identifying Stressors & Flashbacks: After a traumatic event, latent impressions of the experience inadvertently imprinted themselves on the mind. Survivors can develop aversions to the opposite or same sex, tools used during the assault, specific locations etc. For example, if an individual was tied and gagged during repeated assaults, they can easily be spooked by S&M. Conversely, some survivors unconsciously relive the experience by engaging in self-destructive behaviour, which can become heavily sexualised.
Although typical responses are sadness, rage, panic or other forms of extreme emotion, when coming into contact with a stressor or object/subject that triggers a flashback. From personal experience, I’ve found that resistance is futile. The more we resist the memory or image, the more it rages underneath the surface. Therefore, it is highly important to be patient and don’t be too hard on yourself. Reminders will crop up, but they don’t have to rule your life. One day, you’ll be able to look at something that would usually remind you of the worst times in your life and it’ll no longer be the root of your stress or the first thing you are reminded of.
Confront your stressor, but don’t go overboard. If it scares you, approach it slowly. If it angers you, charge at it with all your might. If it upsets you, let it out through a good cry, but never bury it. Burying a stressor is dangerous! The more you aim to ignore it, the more ferociously it’ll come through. If it sets your teeth on edge, there’s a reason. Learning that reason will benefit your personal growth and make your more resilient.
Stressors can awaken memories of a time, when we felt powerless, violated and/or deeply injured. In combination with flashbacks, they give the impression that the event is still ongoing. In a split second, a survivor can feel as if they are right back where it all started…As if no time passed. The lines between the past and present can become blurred, particularly if the abuse remains ongoing or happened not too long ago. In other words, living in present time becomes a challenge, when we are locked in a mental prison of our past. Every deeply traumatic experience forces us to re-learn how to live. That means learning how to accept what happened and moving forward.
Survivors Guilt: Thousands of men, women and children throughout the ages have experienced the most horrific forms of sexual abuse. Some of which survive, when those close to them did not. Driven by the experience, some strive to make their lives mean something. With every nightmare, failure and accomplishment, the guilt compounds, until it literally becomes the prime motivator behind their actions. In their eyes, the amount of suffering they feel was created by them, through whatever they did. In rare cases, it can manifest through the very fact that they survived, whereas others did not. More importantly, it is something that they cannot forgive, overcome or let go without assistance…Without some form of acknowledgement that it is okay, others simply need to hear that there is nothing wrong with them. They did what they needed to do to survive and they are still loved regardless. In cases with a high suicide risk, associated with survivors guilt, it can be very helpful to give them to opportunity to express themselves without being judged or criticised. In therapy, I use the method of creating a safe space for them to share their thoughts or unburden their darkest secrets. This can be easily done with friends or relatives at home. In some extreme cases, survivors just need to hear that they are forgiven to forgive themselves, which is more effective when it is conveyed by people that knew them before the event.
Relationships: As a survivor, the world no longer looks the same, nor do we connect to it in the same way. Opening ourselves to others can become difficult for the lack of empathy or shared experience. To the average man, women can be instantly downgraded to just another ‘rape-case’ or ‘woe-woman story’. So many women avoid sharing as to not make themselves look like a victim. This makes genuine relationships difficult and fosters commitment issues.
Many women choose not to share their past experiences with prospective or actual partners. Although this may seem like a justified defensive measure, how close can we truly be to someone, when we shut a part of ourselves off? If they cannot accept that part of ourselves, how can they accept us for who we truly are? My personal advice is for survivors to take a chance. If we never openly discuss what happened, how are we meant to find closure? How are we supposed to be expected to live with what happened, when we can’t acknowledge it to those we love?