Part 3 Economy, politics, social.
Part 3 of … a few. Economy, politics, social.
Online link to this text:
https://doubleuv.blogspot.com/2020/07/part-3-of-few-economy-politics-social.html
[Spoiler warning! May contain literal real-life spoilers – and there’s no blue pill where you wake up forgotten of ever having read them.]
Observe: This is not a typically written standard literary work, that would take enormously more time. Instead this is for t most part snippets of thinking, more or less isolated thoughts, more or less grouped and ordered, and edited/smoothed out somewhat intra-thought, but very little inter-thought.
This being more akin raw thoughts, means being more raw and explicit, less pleasant ≈ more fun?
For science!
As a scientist I must be as objective as possible and be as truthful as possible.
A scientist searches for t truth and should report findings as they are.
Not being biased, not trying bending t truth in either direction.
If one truly is dedicated in searching for t truth - it is pointless to report anything other than one's true findings and theories so far - because that would enable likethinkers likewise.
I am a scientist, I primarily seek to observe, measure, learn, understand.
A scientist intellectual, physicist mathematician, is t ones who can, in theory, through rising in knowledge, recognize oneself being deceived/tricked/brainwashed and develop resistance/immunity, think outside of t box.
By looking at, studying, measuring t universe/world, and by developing theory, using logic and reason, can recreate everything theoretically possible, out from nothing/zero/scratch, including false and true versions alike, realizing all possible degrees of freedom, all combinatorics, then being able to see t truth.
I/we must.
It is like with religion versus church, and scientists could realize that t church was not telling t truth, allthewhile being silenced and censored by it.
But firstly important is t ability to recognize and know, when one doesn't know something and that one can be wrong and when one is wrong, which is a constant possibility - a possibility not always known.
Know your unknown unknowns, as well as known unknowns, not only your known knowns.
(what about unknown knowns?)
I am a perfectionist highly pressed in time. I would have liked to go over every argument with background research, every formulation, structure micro and macro, to perfection in every tiny detail like Astartes https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFMtdiQILuTZr22sKUeAOOA/videos
Oikonomia
It is not so simple though, there are both strong positives as well as strong negatives, though I am not seeing t strongest of negatives being excused, it is however complex!
And t people behind are also not to be judged simply, there are many layers, many aspects, far deeper down in t rabbit hole than all typical, everyday and available sources talk about, it is complex!
T argument can be turned around t other way just as well. T system built and operated can be seen as a manifestation of en-masse demand from all of the customers and consumers simply wanting to maximize personal wealth and hedonism, through cheaper goods and services, a better more comfortable more carefree lifestyle, all of these create a certain demand that is fulfilled by someone. But at what cost, payed from whom?
One of the first thoughts I had on this, close to 10y ago, is when seeing that all of the many different brands/products in the food store are owned by a few companies. This got me thinking in the path of what happens when companies keep buying up smaller competitors and agglomerate ever larger.
Then the largest buy up the medium to big ones, and in the end there will be a few big ones left.
Any new company starting up must start as a small one which gets it trivially bought up or outcompeted by one of the big ones.
So now t few big ones have in principle locked the system from changing.
But t key fact is in what position they now are.
If one of t few left manages to outcompete t others, that one now has total(itarian) monopoly.
If not, then regardless, of whether with t goal of maximizing profit according t principles of capitalism, or with t goal of maximizing power by game theory, t few remaining big players draw t conclusion that fully competing against eachother isn’t t optimal strategy, but cooperating against everyone else, is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
What you have now is a single company that employs everybody setting their salary and working conditions, while at t same time producing all products, essential and non-essential for survival, setting their prices. Company town, t same situation as in t film In Time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Time
This is de facto a planned command economy, sounds familiar?
What you now/today call “Capitalism” and what you now/today call “Communism” are two sides of t same coin.
Both are just a system for control, they just started t progression at two different stages. “Communism” started closer to t final state (accidental pun), where a small elite are dictators with all of t power.
“Capitalism” just started more at t beginning where everyone naturally can evolve to that same final end state.
Early “Capitalism” has “childhood illnesses, growing pains”.
Middle “Capitalism” is what we’ve gotten to enjoy t last 50-100 years which is, when properly regulated (after childhood lessons), to a very large degree positive and brings t quality of life improvements.
But now we’re transitioning into late or final stage “Capitalism”. This is where t top entities/corporations and t top individuals approach total proportional ownership, which, being a per-definition zero sum game, means t rest (vast majority of people and their elected governments) will be left with an insignificantly small remainder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game
When “Capitalism” “concludes”, you’re left with a tiny group owning and controlling all.
Sound familiar?
They will then have total and utter command over t economy.
They decide how much of each good/service is to be produced and can set any prices.
Sounds familiar?
History has always been about a small top ruling everybody else. Monarchy, dictators.
With western capitalism this has been half-half mix/compromise between t traditional/historical model and a democratic model.
There are good chances to career your way up, but still lots of power being inherited.
What everybody seems to think: people <---> government/state
What really is t case: (people, elect & represented by politicians) = state, public sphere
What everybody seems to be missing:
(rich + corps) = private sphere <---> (people elect & repr. by politicians) = state, public sphere
First one is growing in control/ownership/size/power at t cost of t other, which is being weakened, dismantled, divided.
Politicians are so to say “between a rock and a hard place”:
Team Politicians should represent and defend t ones electing them, Team People.
Team People are convinced (by whom?) to only want more unrestricted economy.
Team Private Sphere IS basically all of economy, and they are no stupid players.
So, only way for Team Politicians to win popularity and get elected is by promising economy, where Team Private Sphere has huge influence.
So Team Politicians have to cater to Team Private Sphere - who commands t economy.
One Team gets their way.
Assuming t goal is for nonrich to have as little as possible, to erode t public into private ownership, t less they have t less powerful and more dependent they are.
Full privatization, no state, meaning nothing owned by t people. Completely dependent on what your employer company provides. Like serfdom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
If having t goal of reducing money for everyone outside of Team Private Sphere.
This can be sped up by letting taxes (money from Team People), go not back to t people but into t private sphere.
Creating jobs, offering jobs, when it can as well be used as conditioning.
"-Good boy! You voted for t politicians to increase economy in our favor, here, have a treat, a few jobs. Who's a good serf? Yes you are!"
T smart and clever Team Private owning almost all finances/capital can “reward” or “punish” t market and economy, based on favourable election result or not, pro-economy president elected or not. To create intelligent associations like “look at how bad economy we had during Obama and how good during T Great Teacher”.
State is for the people, is not for profit, it cannot make profit that doesn't go back to the people.
Everybody doesn't want to pay taxes to the state, but “taxes” are built-in into products/services from corporations.
Dislike taxes? Because it is “stealing your money”? Money that you would otherwise have bought more stuff for yourself with?
T flaw here is thinking that
1. t price is 100% for the materials and labour going into making t product.
When some of that price is marketing ads, lawsuits, enormous salaries of top management, etc.
2. were that money freed up from taxes, and everything public became privately owned, those private owners wouldn’t want you to pay for using roads, nor anything else previously public now being their private property, sure.
Your net costs would decrease, totally. Able to have more stuff for that previously tax money.
Lower taxes eh? It is t same mechanism as insurance, which is:
A group of people get together, with t agreement of pooling money into a pot, each contributing with own share.
When one member of t pool has an accident, they get helped by all t other members by getting a large sum from t common pool.
This is an unfair zero-sum game, many contribute a little and get nothing, while a few get much more out than they payed, similar to lottery. Actually, what is gotten is t security of a payout, unlike lottery. This is also a “social safety net” or “social security” defined by a welfare state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
So if you hate anything “Communism” or “socialism” then why get insurance, why not be t big rich player that you are and pay t full bill directly from your own pocket?
Otherwise, if set on paying for insurance, would you prefer paying to a for-profit private insurance, or paying to a state/public insurance owned by Team People?
So going from a people’s owned state system where there’s complaining about taxes, to a system with private for-profit insurance, is kinda f-ing stupid.
Under t assumption that there is an actually good and fair public health system in place, that uses resources, manpower, materiel efficiently, and is fair where, and this is centrally important: those who are in need of more healthcare and require more expensive healthcare – because of voluntary life CHOICES, are to pitch more in. Which is basically in place in t private system and would not pass voters in a public system.
T American dream is t idea that, how you were born has little influence on your future – if you work hard you can reach t top! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream
T opposite of that is your birth environment deciding your future, Royalty, Caste, - if you’re born Royal you’ll be Royal – if you’re born a peasant, worker, poor, then that’s t only life you will live.
In Sweden (up until some privatization in t recent ~decade) there is public:
Education - no matter who you were born, you can do well in school, to get into a good high-school education, to get into a good university education, where you can go all t way up to a Ph.D.
Healthcare – no matter who (or how) you were born, you can get a good level of health/dental-care.
T public education and healthcare do not operate for profit (which may have own downsides).
But t newly established private for-profit healthcare do!
What is happening in Sweden with t last ~decade of being opened to privatization in healthcare, is that they are not looking for maximizing profit through delivering t best product/service, not through competing to deliver t best possible healthcare in order to win customers money – instead they are trying their best to game t state/publicly funded system for tax money payouts.
Brexit, in short, from t top of my head:
EU is t only institution in t world to take on Murrican corporations in t name of consumer protection. It is picking a fight, making enemies.
Murrican and multinational corporations tax evading through Netherlands and Ireland. Also evading taxes specifically to Europe in t first place. Two birds one stone.
After t Panama Papers leaks, t EU set out to combat tax-evasion and tax-havens overall. And it is a powerful player which can do serious harm, more picking of fights, more making of enemies.
T EU is also regulating corporations for other consumer protections like product/food safety and standard, upholding integrity from privacy limiting surveillance ehem data-collection both private and governmental, environmentally friendly practices, get t pattern?
T Euro € is starting to threaten t Petrodollar $ currency monopoly as t one currency used in t west, not popular.
So a certain Team who is having their profits messed with, would rather see t EU disappear.
Brexit is a step in accomplishing that in many ways.
Take one of t biggest weapons manufacturers away from EU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_by_arms_sales (who just happens to have bought up part of Swedish Bofors AB), exclude EU from t inner circle of “data-collection” 5-eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes , take t biggest economy t UK out of t EU thereby weakening it, from t top of my head.
What I can say to those of you departing t EU is to stay vigilant and observe closely what they do.
Possible is a post-brexit alliance of anglo countries with great laws like Straya’s “data” policies, RAP NEWS #29 G20.
De-regulation and bureaucracy, whose words?
[State / government]
State, which when functioning as intended being uncorrupted, is by t people, for t people.
It is like a union, representing and enforcing t will of t people, protecting their interests.
A workers' union gives that united group a stronger position against their employer.
A government is a union of t people.
T European Union is a union of several smaller countries, on their own quite small and weak in t world, but united a force to rival on t global scene.
T United States is a (repeat of above) union of several smaller states, on their own quite small and weak in t world, but united a force to rival on t global scene.
T only thing that gives you "freedom and democracy" is "the, by the people, for the people, state".
T only thing that gives you a court justice system of law and order is "the, by the people, for the people, state" - in fact, courts aside, just having laws, not that they apply equally right now.
T only thing, keeping in check, corporations controlled by t rich, is "the, by the people, for the people, state".
Which brings me to t matter of all t complaints on government, which are really complaints about CORRUPT state/government which at that point is only partly "by the people" and only partly "for the people", and it isn't corrupt ONLY because of t evil rich and corporations - but also because "the people" don't make an effort good enough, or make a misguided-misinformed effort, or make no effort at all - to keep "the state" straight and honest, but let it get bent to certain wills and special interests.
This is what Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was about:
“...—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
If I were among “the few slave masters”, I wouldn't want “the many slaves” being inspired to freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address
T frog is slowly boiled, until when it starts to suspect something, it rather denies how bad it is - than to make an effort and get out in t cold, saying "well I just don't care if I'm being boiled alive, I have nothing to hide".
New world order, yes, but what NWO? There are several, better and worse, good and bad.
What if you’re slowly being boiled towards a New World Order of nothing public – only private? While at t same time told to watch out for anything that makes a sudden change?
So what are you green froggies really kekking about?
You should be careful what you kek for, because you just might get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
[explaining money]
What is t “money” you have in your hand?
According to me it is a tiny proportion of t worlds total materials and/or labour – at your disposal!
Now there are two aspects, t value you get for that money from t world, and the other way around, how you affect t future world development through your spending choices by creating demand.
In this way you decide a tiny bit of t future of development; you can buy a specialty beer making that being produced more, or t newest microprocessor (Ayyymd not Shintel/noVideo)* having that produced more, or a microtransaction in CandyCrush smh/sigh!
(*vote for business practices)
[explaining t fairness argument]
In society, peoples combined total work is what keeps humanity fed, keeps a good standard of living, and what brings humanity forward in terms of building t world and technological progression. This is t only real thing that matters!
All of t extremely complex economical systems and moneys, and buying stuffs and services is just a way of facilitating that. Getting t workers to do their work. And everybody needs to work, to contribute their part to t whole. T more work is done t more t whole is built and developed.
If half sat around leisuring, doing nothing, or just doing "soft" non-essential stuff like culture then progress would be half as fast.
Building t world, getting people activated instead of slouching, doing efficient work, getting things done, this is what people see and defend. If you don't work and contribute towards everybody else, then you don't get to take part of t contributions of others - why should you get a free ride? This is t fairness in t system, true.
This is what average-joe proponents of capitalism see and defend, while t ones at t top see their control increasing with a tiny increment for each transaction, (sv: men många bäckar små blir till en stor å), and that is their "hidden" agenda to increase capitalism, that goes over everybody's heads.
[explaining companies / corporations]
Whenever a group gets together into a “company” to say, make a product to sell to everyone, some facts can be observed.
T product has a certain cost of realization which is t raw materials, energy for processing them, salaries for human work directing everything, required knowledge through R&D, etc.
When pricing/selling this product, t company:
cannot sell it below this cost, it would go net minus,
cannot sell it at equal this cost, that would be ±0,
but must sell it above this cost, with a certain profit,
that profit can be decreased if a competitor offers t same product for a lower profit – competition.
Anyhow, t point is that this creates, between these two parties, a net flow towards/into t company, t customer gets slightly less than hen gives t company.
This was a company’s income, lets look at costs – labour.
T company needs human labour in order to make anything, so human work goes into t company and salary comes out. When pricing/buying work, t company:
cannot pay more than t work is worth to them, net minus
cannot pay equal to what t work is worth, would be ±0,
but must pay less than t work is worth to them,
also here a net flow towards/into t company, t employee gets slightly less than hen gives t company. A desperate worker may work for a large gap (TRIGGERED!), while again competition in terms of another employer seeking that particular work may decrease that gap.
This is btw funnily and interestingly somewhat reminiscent of physics principles, where an increase in entropy (some free energy) leads to formation of an ordered structure, and/or a constant such flow keeps a system together.
Further on this, supply and demand is something fundamental in nature itself (it has nothing with capitalism to do other than being a central component in it). It can be likened to any gradient in a physical system. An inequilibrium driving a certain motion in t system, while being evened out.
Profit is owning more, it is transfer of ownership.
When do you make t most profit?
When you have competition, or cartel, or monopoly?
When your customers have much to say with good consumer protection, or when they are powerless?
When your employees have strong rights, or when they are desperate for a job?
So in order to maximize profit, what situation does, a cartel/monopoly with large power compared to costomers and employees, resemble?
Stealing is, reasoning somewhat mathematically, a special/edge/extreme case of a transaction - where t distribution is 0%:100%; where t second party get all of t total value of t transaction and t first party gets none. A fully one-sided transaction. For t "thief" this is maximum profit.
In a transaction where a customer is being sold a product, t less value gotten and t higher price payed approaches stealing. If you buy a computer/phone that cost 90% of your price to realize it, or if you pay alot for something that doesn't cost much to produce, like SMARTphone "games" microtransactions, how much value are you getting, how much did it cost of your price to realize, how much are you paying?
In a transaction where an employee trades work for salary, t less pay you can be given - minimum being you can just feed yourself to survive, having nothing more - t closer to one party getting all of t value while t other getting none. "Stealing" work in this sense has a name, it is called "slavery".
This is btw exactly what we are doing to our animals, their work is to eat food, process it and with it build their bodies which is what we sell/buy as food. They get absolute minimum in terms of food and living conditions - because that's an expense that would make meat more expensive. For t full work they do - a benefit going solely to us - they get absolute minimum to survive, slavery.
Inherently, a company/corporation small or big isn't necessarily anything inherently bad/evil - it's a collection of people getting behind a common idea working together, having each a fitting specialization, to accomplish a certain goal like making an advanced product that couldn't have been realized otherwise.
Reflections of customers' wills and desires.
Hierarchy and bosses isn’t t worst, it is organization. It’s not just work that matters; organization, initiative, planning, is taken for granted.
Some make a tradeoff for t comfort/convenience of just needing to follow instructions given out by others and not having to think about anything else but just enjoying one’s sparetime – while others, do insane amounts of work almost non-stop, taking upon themselves all of that other which is needed for t first to be possible.
Both sides need to have mutual respect and consideration for eachother, not take eachother for granted, and have a good balance so that one sides agendas doesn’t dominate.
But forget all t labels, de facto it is t few that govern t many, it is as if we children “have been given t chance” to get to govern ourselves and failed so now we get bereft this opportunity and “t parents” take back over.
But to succeed we must have working organization that doesn’t get corrupted and t right ideology is needed for this but also a continuous effort from everybody.
From seeing reporting of Raz in CHAZ/CHOP.
Leaders, with large concentrations of power, do not necessarily form by seizing and/or stealing that power - but by most just looking for someone to tell them what to think and what to do, which is much easier than thinking for yourself, simply followers looking for a leader.
This is probably what builds hierarchies, at each level (by mathematical induction).
With socialism you have two major pitfalls,
1. due to incompetence, resources not used efficiently, and there's no competitor to do a better job and take over,
2. due to malice, selfishness, corruption.
Sure with more money/control/power transferred from t people to private sector you do get more efficient use of resources, less material go into crap products, and less decision power to t uneducated, means smarter choices, but these ARE steps towards slavery and also governance based on very much selfishness and corruption of power and of t powerful, partly due to huge ego.
So t question is, can we have an organization with a high degree of efficiency in both production and decisions, leading to technological development - without slavery, without "CANNIBALIZING" ourselves, without corrupting our souls?
Conflict of interest is something considered very serious and is sought to be eliminated, for example in court cases. But with private for-profit corporations there is an almost universal inherent constant conflict of interest.
For a restaurant, it may be more profitable to choose t cheapest crappiest ingredients for your food, than good quality ones – if they can get away with it, selling you t dish for t same price without you noticing.
For healthcare, it may be more profitable to keep you sick/ill and treating you, than to cure t root cause.
It is more profitable for t drugdealer to have customers being dependent needing to constantly come back for more, than it would be to have customers just doing party drugs every now and then.
For electronics and car manufacturers, it may be more profitable to design/make products with planned obsolescence (engineered to fail) rather than making something built to last – provided it can be gotten away with without you noticing or objecting or changing behaviour.
When not to privatize, 1:25, Robert Reich: The Truth About Privatization https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wYHRWo2Ins .
How do you get t traditional left, t working class, who are at least 2/3 of t population to not vote left?
T strategy is to make t left non-economy box as unattractive as possible for t majority of reasonable people, pigeon-hole principle ensures all those votes go to t only remaining pro-economy right box.
Work and Stuffs.
For simplicity's sake, one only has to look at both ends, not t insanely complicated part inbetween, tying them together.
Work, physical as well as intellectual is to be done to maintain and progress society, partly by creating goods and services and knowledge.
This is easy to understand and can be universally agreed upon.
In order to do this you get compensated a selection of what has been produced, you do this partly for t need to survive, food, but also desires beyond that.
This is also easy to understand and can also be universally agreed upon.
Money is just an inbetween translator, from Work to Stuffs.
Then one can look at ownership/control.
Of t total goods and services to own/control each individual has a small to tiny stake.
Then one can look at absolute ownership amount; and hear "average citizen today has way more stuffs than 50 or 100 years ago, living standards go up", which is true.
However, one can also look at proportional ownership amount, and this isn't static.
If you plot a distribution of how many people x own y% proportion (~pyramid of capitalism), there would probably be a line to separate two halves; below t line you have t many who proportionally own less with time, above you have t few who own more with time. Moreover, t line probably isn't static, but probably moves up. And this is where that insanely complicated monetary machinery becomes important, because it is what orchestrates this behavior.
Debt is negative ownership.
If you own a house costing 1M your net worth is 1M.
If half of that is loaned from a bank, then half of that is owned by that bank and your net worth is 0.5M, net worth equals assets minus liabilities.
Public/state debt is shared among everyone that t public/state belongs to, that is team many mainly, those who pay taxes and elect state.
It’s interesting how t politicians chosen by t people, choose to give a bunch of money to businesses big and small, and to citizens, while this money is a loan from t private sector, to which t debt will be owned, where t interest will steadily flow being part of collected taxes, and who could take possession if t interest cannot be paid. How much do you really own, debt slave?
Debt is t overlooked and non-obvious whip that gets you to be productive, t large interest bill at t end of every month for someone largely endebted, is “t fire under your ass” or stick that forces you to productivity, wealth gotten is t carrot. I would argue that indebtedness can be seen as a “gas pedal” for a society, want to increase your population’s productivity, make them more indebted.
Debt is a way to have alot – and at t same time be very motivated to keep productivity high.
But like in car driving, too much, too fast, wrong driving at a bad part of t road, during bad road conditions, something unexpected, and you may have a car accident, and t bubble may burst.
A very strong argument can be made FOR wealth concentration and FOR keeping t masses poor.
Imagine your average Joe winning like 10M, how would this money be spent?
Expensive: partying? services? food? luxury clothes and items? entertainment? car? housing?
Such things would by those actions get a larger demand and grow/develop. And how much of it contributes to technological development bringing humanity forward?
Mostly animal stuff; procreation, food, sleep, pleasure.
Not much of above-animal; knowledge, science, technological development.
It’s t same reason young children in a family are not handed large amounts of t family’s finances, they’d just spend it on pleasures and entertainment, compared to what t adults would do of them same finances.
While a millionaire would take that money and invest it into some industry that is growing, inso keeping that money and having it grow. And t investment making that industry grow, which is a long-term benefit driving humanity and its development forward.
Sure, t millionaire already does all those animal things with t rest of their money, so my argument seems kinda self-defeated.
Maybe t point is this, were t 90%’s salaries doubled over say a year, t world’s resources wouldn’t be directed towards long-term productive activities and technological progression, but towards in-t-moment pleasures and hoarding mostly useless stuff.
Though it doesn’t seem fair to reserve pleasures to a very select few, this is helped somewhat by if they actually made great effort thereby deserving that, but this can be discussed back and forth alot. It’s like an unfair compromise and in this I’m picturing demographics of developed western countries, on a world scale, those in t bottom live under completely inexcusable conditions!
What I just realized, while in t process of writing this together from my scrap notes,
is that in capitalism leadership and decisionmaking is selected and adapted, to bring out t best of t best, with many lesser going under. Plus each area* has own specialized leadership, who isn’t hand-picked but naturally selected by a sort of evolution (funny) to that position.
This may be t actual true strength in capitalism.
*Area being a company specializing in a certain field, with expertise in that field both among workers and leadership.
Yes, t more I think about it, t more it makes sense and fits.
Before, in t old times of pre-technology, it was just someone who happened to come to power, who maybe made incompetent bad decisions, t difference now when Capitalism concludes will be that this time it will be t best of t best selected and adapted, “distilled” out of t game.
Government appointed leaders and decisionmakers are unlikely to be optimal picks, because you elect by popularity, public image, promises of more money in your wallets, not a thorough analysis of policies, nor merit in doing a good job in terms of decisions and organization.
So you need good decisions being taken, by people in those positions, who are good at decisionmaking and leadership.
Further, Public Sphere in it's current form, has no incentive to develop, improve, increase efficiency, in part because it has no competition, no one threatening to do a better job upon any failure.
But also, for t ones in power in Team Public it’s “third party purchases”:
(as explained perfectly in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfC1YG9wIs by PragerU)
it’s not first party purchases – things to me, for my money
not second party purchases – things to others, my money OR things to me, others’ money
but it is third party purchases – things to others, for others’ money
It is too lenient with consequences on those who do a bad job, both work wise and management wise. (On t other hand, ironically, I couldn’t be thinking about all this, for close to ten years, were t system to be strict on failure!)
Take these combined and you have what is happening to a large degree in Sweden’s public sector.
And this fits perfectly as t explanation of why “Capitalism works and socialism fails” – because one has bad selection of leadership with very little change and adaptation.
Take your typical “Communist dictatorships”, which actually have almost NOTHING with communism to do. There is a “clause” that leads to a fork off t main Communism path that goes something like “t people are not intelligent enough to rule themselves, they must educate themselves first, in t meantime we core revolutionaries must TEMPORARILY assume power, but only until such time as t people have educated themselves enough”.
Sounds familiar btw? It really should! Another similarity between t coin’s sides.
And so you get a static system with one “party” in rule.
T ones who happen to come to power are statistically very unlikely to be very good at their post and they can stay for a long time, and they pick their hierarchy below after nepotism, friendship, loyalty – not actual proven ability.
And this was your absolutely favourite example of Venezuela, being one of t worst case scenarios. You had incompetent leadership throughout t hierarchy, leading to bad decisionmaking.
Corporations were nationalized, which in itself means nothing, but their leadership was hand picked after friendship and loyalty from a pool of military background. So t ones running t country’s production were far from optimal decisionmakers for their respective areas and posts, so t workers were badly directed. Hence low quantity and low quality of produced goods and services.
Public money was given out to t people without demanding quality nor quantity of work in return – a onesided deal/exchange, jokingly “anti-slavery” or “reverse-theft”.
People probably spent t money on stupid in-t-moment things and not long-term beneficial things.
This way Team People/Public got ruined/bankrupted, no Team Private as in private corporations existed, I guess rich on their own existed but not controlling anything.
Greece has similarities in that weak/lenient or outright selfish/corrupt were taking decisions in t Public Sphere.
Private Sphere could easily get away with taxes to Public Sphere.
Public Sphere in turn managed resources badly,
employed into positions as favors to friends – again, bad one-sided deals,
was too generous with government subsidies/handouts – again, money spent with bad ROI,
thereby bankrupting itself, either maliciously planned intentionally or through pure incompetency.
Private Sphere most likely ran their affairs tight and efficient, so in t end Public Sphere has to take take loans and in so indebting itself = Team People to paying tax-funded interest to t loangiver, reduce Public spending = austerity, summa summarum Team People/Public get less and shrink, while Team Private kept growing, and so became relatively/proportionally larger – voilà.
Soviet Union, Motherland, guesstimates here: probably had somewhat competent party top in charge, there still was a hierarchy, was no Team People, t people were slaves who could only do as told, was no Private Sphere, though high ranking party memebers were probably effectively rich. Actually, de facto and effectively, an elite owning and directly controlling all of production, plan economy, with people having no say in a self-censorship culture, that is t coin again!
So according to me, this is t key, it is t quality of decisions being made, how well-informed they are, how close they are to t (theoretical) optimal decision.
Corporations do, in t full serious meaning, plan economy and t course of society.
For example, they decide on t design and features of upcoming products, how many are to be made, how long it should be used for. At a company there are teams specialized in market analysis, cost analysis, executive positions taking t final decisions, this all leads to decisions closer to optimum, a good quality planned economy.
Contrary to say Soviet Union or Venezuela where there was a less good decisionmaking apparatus, decisions farther from optimum, leading to a worse quality planned economy.
So this is where t capitalist system really shines through with its strengths.
T system is very dynamic, non-static, in terms of positions.
Top positions who function as nodes are by design sought to be occupied by t most qualified at that job. In a competitive environment, what does a better job gets an advantage, similar to evolution.
Every participant, be it an individual person, or “individual” entity corporation, has a constant incentive to improve in t form of increased profit as reward.
Every participant is able to come up with something new, innovative, test it out in practice, driven by t potential of personal gain as reward.
Thereby naturally and universally good decisionmaking, leadership, skill, resource efficiency, is found and formed and put into its (more or less) right position, a variant of self-organization, driven by profit, selfish gain. This sounds pretty damn good.
Problem is though, there’s a net flow, which mathematically/physically means there is a beginning state, evolution of t system through a series of states, and finally leading up to a final state. T current “Capitalism” has as objective only to increase profit and t endless accumulation of capital.
But before you go all celebratory cheering for and worshipping your new neo-monarch de facto rulers and t socioeconomic system they dictatorially control, there’s one little tiny detail to not overlook: what if their interests differ from yours or are outright contrary to yours*?
*fineprint: Tiny little insignificant detail: t state, t government, also known as t Public Sphere is t only “freedom and democracy” voting elections you have.
In t private sphere there is only voting by investment and "voting with you wallet".
How much power do you have over corporate decisions?
But "government and regulations are so bad and should be reduced/removed", right?
Words from whose lips?
There is no law or justice in Corporatocracy, no innocent until proven guilty, no fundamental or human rights, no constitution, no free speech, no moral or ethics, there is only profit and whatever works to increase profit: how much do you contribute to profit and how much to loss, period.
All of this is provided from t peoples’ union of “the, by the people, for t people, state”, and is seriously taken for granted in t strongest sense of t word.
Are your opinions unpopular? Making you unpopular? Then you are to be removed for disturbance of everyone’s comfortableness and harmony, or self-censor yourself – exact connection to t “church of feminizm & sjw”.
Because t overarching directive above corporatism, is control, t “church of feminizm & sjw” was invented to divide & conquer t traditional left and to get another tool to control groups of people, in this case not through directly/overtly threatened self-censorship obvious to tyrannies - but through a much more subtle, hidden and silent fear of sticking out, not fitting in, offending somebody sensitive, type of self-censorship.
As I have become somewhat of an expert in since my dealings with LUNA (Sweden, Lund-U, previous posts).
Have almost an essay written on t topic, again thanks to them..
(To be fair, it is true though that I am far from perfect, I did/do have some aspects to think about and change, so I see it as a means to an end, and wouldn’t change it in t end. Also it gave a very valuable firsthand insight into, and experience of, that area of social group/behaviour, and most importantly, what path it can lead society down.)
T law of following t "path of least emotional load" dictates that it is much easier to group together and ascribe inconsistencies to being t fault of t scapegoat itself, than it is to reconcile that oneself and those around are following t wrong path, to have to change ones worldview, that t system around you is wrong, which is then followed by t implication of getting t potentially Herculean task to oppose and battle t system - or simply just blame t scapegoat!
This is lack of t ability to think critically, independently, objectively and leads to groupthink, herd behavior and a lock-in.
And you rightists don't have it gotten right either!
Some things need to not be optimized for one companies'/groups profit and at t cost of everyone else, because that can lead to for example tragedy of t commons(/anticommons), but instead be a logical decision for t benefit of all. Not everything should be fully optimized for maximization of profit, human rights and freedoms for example are somethings important but conflicting with profitability. This is where several corporations competing under laissez-faire capitalism or a selfish monopoly fall short, and why something that is different and external is needed, like a well functioning union, state.
It is like state has been an (more or less controlled) "experiment" run by t dictatorial rich monarchy, to give t people power and freedom through democracy and state, in order to make people innately driven to accomplishment, through a system of selfish reward - because forced slavery against peoples wills wouldn't have made as fast technological progress, but now t circle is closing so to say, and we're getting back to allpowerful kings. An interesting thought is, how much control over this project would they then have kept, in t background?
This construct, I would say, has t purpose of concentrating* wealth and thereby power and influence. If this is for a somehow noble purpose, and/or a selfish one, I can only speculate (a lot!). But judging by this picture (wealth/capita)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_wealth_per_capita,_1,_OWID.svg in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth it is evident which citizens get most say in t world assuming wealth=influence, and how would t world look if some of t red zones were in a dominant position? What world views and systems do they have in place?
What I believe we need now is a different construct, one that has technological development as purpose to enrich everyone’s lives, has ethics, morality, truth and science built in as rewards, uses resources logically and environmentally.
At t same time I strongly suspect that for this new construct to exist, t vast majority, t few as well as t many, must have a good ideology and philosophy, have to actually take some responsibility regarding t whole, regarding education and knowledge, not simply be maximally selfish.
*Not only concentrating influence where ideologies are “better”, but also having t effect of brain drain, and brain-concentration on a world scale, and in a way also brain-monopoly. This could be something beneficial for technological development, but also for control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight
It is not about red vs blue, about left or right, etc., it is about control over t many by t few. But also something that almost no one knows, there is also control in t other direction, over t few by t many! They must to a large degree follow t will of t masses. All that mentioned in t beginning is just to create division to conquer/rule/control.
It's not that simple black and white, it's complicated, like a frienemy, a love-hate relationship.
One's “salary” is ownership and control - in exchange for doing organizational work.
While t other's “salary” is an easier, more comfortable and more careless existence for doing appointed tasks.
Kind of like parents and children.
You want everything good and easy and pleasurable and cheaper and more of, they are just fulfilling that demand, but may at t same time along t way have own desires/goals/motives, towards which they may influence you, and as they are getting more influential and powerful, there may come a point, a sort of critical mass, where they can seize total control and take over, becoming powerful enough to change t rules of t game.
(T EU support package of 500 G€ or 0.5 T€ can be seen as tax money given to private sector, but seems more to be a loan, in that case from whom? some bank? tax payers? is it part of debt slavery? oh, so according to "Economics Explained - next great depression" t govt borrows money from private institutions - on behalf of t people, in order to help that same private sector, indebting t people to it, nonono, no net flow from team people+government to team rich+corporations.)
T EU is not a big truck you can dump on, it is not somebody to run to whenever you're in a tough spot, and scapegoat and want out of if you don't get money.
If you as a country have a certain industry, and certain world conditions change in either your disfavor or favor, then take responsibility and stand for your actions and choices. Don't be like a church member of fzm&sjw, and don't repeat t socialism trap of demanding stuff for me now and/or voting shortsightedly yourself into ruin. Same principles apply as to individuals, corporations, countries. Not too individualistic/selfish, not too collectivist/selfsacrificial, better be longer sighted with bigger long-term rewards – than to be shorter sighted with smaller short-term rewards.
“Bailouts” are supposed to be loans from Team Public to Corporations (part of Team Private), while huge government subsidies like t one for t pandemic is supposed to (atleast partly) be a loan t other way, from Corporations (part of Team Private) to Team Public (which then hands out to all). I am a bit unclear on this. It does seem fair, interests payed both ways, upon default can repossess both ways. But there may be a huge difference, Team Public isn’t going anywhere, and its interests/debts will be paid from taxes in any case, total confidence/security. Other way around, bailee may go bankrupt with no more interests nor anything of value to repossess, loan is defaulted. Even worse, like illustrated in Game of Thrones, loangiving Team Public may be forced to keep bailing out, “keep alive”, to avoid such a default, a kind of lock-in.
Team Private (rich + corporations), influence Team Public government, manipulate Team People with propaganda, who then decide over Team Public, a feedback cycle. It's like tricking little children, well wake t f up, and smell t ashes!
Whenever you see advocation for right, conservative, economy, anti-left, anti-socialism... ask yourself t question, does it makes sense? I mean does it serve t Team Private agenda?
Whenever tax money (public) is used carelessly wastefully on purchasing goods and/or services from t private sector.
Capitalism positives (under limited conditions and timeframe)
How do you activate someone lazy, get them to be very productive - without being totalitarian and explicitly forcing them?
How do you get selfish and evil people to work towards a common good - without totalitarianly explicitly enforcing a change of personality?
+ incentive and motivation for organization, initiative, creation, ideas, innovation etc.
Self-organizes everybody into something productive and functioning. Made even more impressive considering everyone can be as selfish as they want, with t whole keeping (more or less) stable.
+ “creates a fire under peoples’ asses” getting generally very lazy people into action, because no other option than to support oneself.
How do you create a sort of plausible deniability, masque a persons failure to become great in life, both about/towards oneself, but also towards/about that person from t others around?
+ creates a “slavery is freedom” “fairy tale” “dream existence” where one can live purely in t moment, only thinking about fun things, not having to consider anything beyond pure self.
This is t hardest quality to formulate/convey from thoughts/understanding and into words or text.
RAP NEWS 30, 3:58 perfectly puts a finger on t lock-in (at least an aspect, a part of, that which is hard to explain).
T problem isn't necessarily all of t "evil rich" and what they want, disregarding that, t enormous problem remaining is managing - EN MASSE - human laziness, lack of knowledge and understanding, getting people to actually be productive - all t while in a way feeling second nature for them, not feeling forced nor self-obligated, in this manner one isn't worried from feeling guilt or shame of what one has or hasn't done or must do, it all comes naturally and one can focus on enjoying existence, this may be an actual additional wonder of t world.
Letting go of those reigns, I have no idea of what might happen. Like Z (a studymate) said, “slavery is freedom”. In a way, yes - because you need not worry about feeling any guilt nor shame for not performing well enough, struggling with keeping performance up.
Current system now in place is optimized for arbitrarily low knowledge, arbitrarily low effort, arbitrarily high selfishness ...no need to worry about planning anything hard, thinking about t whole, someone else has that as a job, simply follow t stream and follow what you're told, just let go of everything else ...makes one understand and appreciate "freedom - living free in t NC", t freedom from responsibility, freedom to have fun, freedom to be a mere child/pet/slave.
With great freedom comes great responsibility, like this problem was illustrated in GoT with t freed slaves.
So how do t many govern themselves in a way that doesn't require power being taken away from them?
In this I constantly come back to that knowledge is needed.
So how do you then make knowledge prevalent amongst t many? Without breaking freedom? That is an open question in need of a good answer.
More on t lock-in:
From one perspective it can be seen as: seemingly I cannot affect/change anything, t world and its systems in place and t ones with power are so much bigger than small me, I might as well not even try, just live my life trying to make t best of it within t framework given to me, trying to maximize happy. So nothing changes.
From another perspective, as written previously above: it means a sh*tload of responsibility has been lifted off of my shoulders and I can just relax without overthinking things, without needing knowledge to plan everyone’s course, just live my life and enjoy t moment.
A prison or freedom. A curse or a blessing.
But at t same time, who could, if they wanted to change anything?
Kim Jong-un couldn’t just one day do a 180 and say “hey, starting today we will have democracy”, that would never work, that societal structure would become unstable chaotic or not even budge, and it would most likely not work out well for himself, and he knows this, so he keeps course.
The same with other world leaders.
T systems in place, seemingly to me, cannot be changed from neither bottom nor top.
Like in t tale of “The Scorpion and the Frog”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
Among those running t system, no single one dares to stick out and be t first one to go against t stream/group, and even if one does it may not work in any case, because of t second one, etc., and one or a few isn’t enough.
At t same time those running t system must obey t wills/desires (subconscious ones) of t people in having t system in place. So between themselves and t people, they only have t choice of continuing and reinforcing t system.
And t people can only hear what is being said, and want more of t same, because not knowing of other paths.
So t frog and t scorpion do each that which is in their nature. And everybody is locked to play out their roles, not break character, like “South Park S12E07 Super Fun Time”, in t corporate world self-censored.
You form and shape t whole as well, but it's not really fair, because you're not aware of it, and you're being manipulated.
I see houseslaves** and parrotmonkeys*, and those who who just mirror what their audience wants to hear to get clicks/(page)views. An audience who wants to hear confirmation bias to what they already think, almost no one wants contradictory statements, they are uncomfortable and avoided, and so those who speak/write make sure to say whatever will be best received, to please their audience – to maximize profit. And so you can get a vicious spiral reinforcing itself going off in a certain direction – if you are not intelligent enough to recognize this, think for yourself and rise above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuous_circle_and_vicious_circle
*Parrotmonkey – half monkey, half parrot and half sheep.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Repeating something without understanding what it is you’re saying.
Following without questioning nor thinking why.
**Houseslave – someone who supports a system and those in it above, based mainly on oneself having/getting a good position in it, compared to those below.
(T current societal and economic system gives plausible deniability of having different socioeconomic positions.
"That other person high above me having more money, must have done something not fully comprehensible and vague, plus t world isn't fair, likewise I'm not very sure how my position is my own making", compared to,
"difference in resources because that one is more intelligent/hardworking than me, I am a lesser person".
I wouldn’t see it as harshly, many different contributions are needed in different ways and fill different functions of t whole, not always obvious either, “God works in mysterious ways” ;)
Just like (developed western world) feminists/feminizts/sjw can "pretend" their existence easier by having "patriarchy" as a scapegoat - ascribing everything bad to it - instead of taking personal responsibility for hard effort not made leading up to ones current situation, so can everyone by having capitalism/illuminati/evilones/world to blame for not having it better. This is seemingly at first glance completely insignificant, but I would argue that compared to t alternative, this "makebelieve" quality of t currently run world is EXTREMELY powerful on peoples' self-esteem, it absolves one of responsibility and guilt for being in a bad situation - it's someone else's fault, I am helpless - makes one feel much less bad. But it is also partly insidious in that it doesn't force people to consider t current situation critically, it doesn't force people to affect t common situation, in so it coerces/cradles into accepting t current situation, all by offering a more carefree existence, in this way it locks in - through t very powerful psychological effect of: were one to even consider in t opposite direction, that would mean personal guilt/responsibility/failure but also that t world isn't a carefree fairytale and that great effort is to be expended into making something good - this psychological effect of "choosing t path of least emotional load" is what so powerfully locks in!
I don't hate whatever-capitalism and system we have now, it does do a lot of good, what I hate is how it is used in a dishonest morally corrupt manner, and that it is on a trajectory towards more slavery.
Further, t psychological behaviour of "choosing t path of least emotional load" is a situation so far gone that a choice is presented and a path is to be chosen, before going that far, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are there to avoid even coming to that situation, to mask/hide t choice, this in itself is in place to further decrease "emotional load".
[wealth concentration on a world scale]
Corporations in one country is a tool to draw riches from t surrounding territories into that country. Competition on t world stage being won, means they rake home t most profits, part will be salaries going to t people, part will be projects built, with materials/resources bought from outside – with t raked in money.
So making companies “stronger”≈more competitive, by allowing them more freedoms, restricting less, means more inflow into t country. Has also some secondary side-effects on society.
[explanation of Capitalism]
Why writing capitalism in quotations?
Because what is taught in school is best case scenario, where competition is kept high thereof t net flow and selfishness is minimal, where proper regulations are in place keeping customers and employees safe from predatory practices, in fact making sure they get a good deal, actually both sides get a good deal.
In these ways t negative effects for t many are minimized while positive ones are maximized.
While in "Capitalism" t positive effect for t top few are worked on to be maximized in a very selfish manner, on t other side it means striving towards monopolization, minimal limitations in terms of outside regulations, predatory practices against customers and slavery of "employees", a very one sided deal.
One of these is t one who gets celebrated and advocated for “lifting out of poverty”, “improving standards of living”, “being a fair system”, “working better than socialism”, etc.
There is a little more at stake than just t same political economic left-right policies that have been on discussion during t last 50, 100, 150 years, that seem to be somewhat reasonably possible to finally being able to work out in t modern society - but instead there is a plot-twist, a curve-ball thrown at humanity, turning everything upside-down.
Power≈wealth gets concentrated. What they will do with it? [pictures, pyramid, line]. Now you bring technology in general* and mind uploading in particular into this and a few of you may maybe begin to understand where I've had to live with for well over a year now. Certain literary works become quite literal, go from fiction to being for real, to being science fiction, science fact, a prophecy, a warning!
*Power concentration still means having a hierarchy of independent (more or less) individuals under your command, willingly obeying your will, including those dispensing violence, police, military. A robot army (autonomous weapons; AI) increases power concentration enormously, maybe by several orders of magnitude, because t one(s) at t top giving orders, would no longer need an obedient conscious choice-making management layer between them and t soldiers, who neither would be making any conscious choices of agreeing or not.
AI, long before becoming general purpose, and further, conscious (self-aware), can be used as a tool and/or weapon with incredible capabilities/power, orders of magnitude more powerful than biological human mental ability.
In a globally interconnected computerized society information is everything, just knowing (surveillance) can give enormous advantages, not speaking of silencing/filtering, editing/modifying, fabricating (example deepfake). This can be used to forever lock-in in enslavement, without any possibility of any revolution.
Automation of manual labour, has come pretty far now, meaning those with t money/capital have a decreasing need to buy manual labour in exchange for a salary. All higher educated academics breathe relieved, hah, not my problem. Except that automation of mental labour, AI, is far in development, performing on par or (vastly) outperforming humans in surprisingly many and surprising tasks, replacing humans. This computational labour is just lagging behind t physical one, meaning those with t money/capital will have a decreasing need to buy mental labour in exchange for a salary.
Then we also need to have a discussion on consciousnesses in man made machinery, be they artificial or not, with regards to ethics and rules and laws. Back to t present, skip next paragraph.
(COVID-19 perfect circumstances for mind uploading.
Important people disappearing from their posts (pres. Paul Biya of Camerun, Kim Jong Un, Boris
Johnson) for medical treatments.)
This much break in production, I don’t believe in coincidences, it is either for MU or more privatization, t two explanations I can think up(, or hopefully:
...this is why we can't have good in t world, because everyone is struggling to keep afloat of real life tasks/responsibilities, when we need to slow down a little, take/catch a breath, (maybe even relax a little,) and take a good look around of where we are and where we're going. )
With t AI technology existing to make convincing enough video and audio synthesis, together with probably enough data gathered to somewhat convincingly replicate-synthesize an individual’s behaviour.
At t same time as everyone is isolated, you cannot physically verify people in your surroundings, perfect plausible deniability.
If I were to “sneak”/disappear people away, for “medical treatments”, this would be t perfect conditions.
T first unsolved problem.
T majority can be wrong, take t wrong/suboptimal decisions, etc. But so can a small elite too. How do you organize to minimize of spiralling into t wrong directions?
While still hopeful and searching for a general solution, I have a fearful suspicion that it isn't possible to find one good universal governance, organizational system, that it simply doesn't exist, isn't possible, that we only have several imperfect ones, each with it's own maximizations, tradeoffs, sacrifices, and that t best situation possible is a balanced mix, where no single one dominates and there is variety but with fluctuations.
That last thing can be important to give purpose so that everyone throughout time feel that they have something to strive towards, a purpose in life, and accomplishment.
A big real-life play to keep t children occupied?
Capitalism, is ownership of t means of production by, t small top elite, who with a salary employ t workers, not centralized - but evolving/converging towards.
Socialism, is ownership of t means of production by, everyone, centralized.
Communism, is ownership of t means of production by, t working class, I’d guess decentralized.
So, reasoning a little naïvely, I’d say that, taking mid-stage-capitalism (not late-stage-capitalism) and flipping corporate ownership from t ones without salaries (~1%) to those with salaries (~99%), kind of gets you Communism.
Maybe this could be viable, having t previous owners employed with salaries to make t same decisions (that they steered their owned capital with before), incentive to best take care of ones capital would disappear, like with politicians now, but an interesting thought experiment, like colour-inverting an image.
T simple and ugly truth, is or seems to be, that t majority don't know what is best for them as an individual nor as larger groups. There is a lack of knowledge and understanding about, but also a lack of will to take t time, effort and responsibility required to make, decisions in many specialized complex areas.
Given t chance, t people would vote in t direction of getting everything for free and not have to do any work. This puts a fundamental limit on what can be achieved within Team Public, by t elected rulership. If they enact something that seems harsh or doesn’t look nice in t people’s eyes, it gets voted differently.
This problem is circumvented by introducing Team Private and privatizing. Now there is somebody, who regardless of public outcry, can freely take decisions affecting society, saying NO, setting boundaries, where and which Team Public was never able to.
It’s like parents who know what’s better in t long run and make a childs life harder in t short term.
Problem is when t decisions that are being taken are not in any term for t benefit of t children.
Socialism is central ownership, a single central monopoly, power concentration, no wonder it fails.
Policies on everything are voted on by t masses.
Or you can fix this with a dictatorship, but then power most likely will corrupt.
Simply people/children don't know what is best for them and vote themselves into ruin. It probably is a very similar trap to, short term instant gratification over long term reward, and like 90+% fall for that, myself included, so nothing controversial.
Capitalism, whether "democratic" or dictatorial fixes this with certain society affecting decisions getting a barrier (wall?), behind which voting is irrelevant.
What is most pleasant is seldom that which is best.
The School of Life https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel/videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk Why Socrates Hated Democracy
T second unsolved problem.
Everybody is equal in front of t law, doesn’t mean much, or worse, can enforce tyranny if t law says that there can be a secret police who are free to act arbitrarily as they see fit, or if t law says that an elite have different/none rules compared with t rest.
Everybody are not always equal in front of t law, money gives huge advantage, both in knowing your rights and limits, and winning court cases (legal disputes).
Like illustrated in Game of Thrones’ “trial by combat” – it isn’t about empirically/logically determining t guilt or innocence, right or wrong, of neither t accused nor t accusee, instead it is who can bring t best “defence” to t “fight”.
Which I interpret as a satirical allegory/metaphor/analogy of t “Murrican trial” – where you get a much more favourable outcome with increasing socioeconomic status, in large by affording a better lawyer/fighter.
Those with more money, know their rights better, know their obligations better, thereby knowing their possibilities better.
In Murrican trial each party pays their trial costs separately, independent of trial outcome. If those costs are too much for your financial situation, regardless if you are in t right or wrong, you cannot afford neither to take someone, nor be taken by someone, to trial.
This favors those with stronger finances, regardless of guilt or innocence, inequality in front of t law.
Very many things in Murrican society favor stronger finances.
Is this a way of designing/architecting/building society with t assumption that those who succeed correlate with those who know better? And/or are somehow better suited to have power and decide?
[constructive Capitalism]
To not live up to this meme...
https://external-preview.redd.it/lBme9LpesAlsfqnPrdT8KrG1V2FnE3g_g4parBWP58I.jpg?s=716498051365ef8fdd661a3b910f1cc156a65e5f (criticizing capitalism vs presenting alternatives)
...too much, here are at least some suggestions.
We've had a 100+ year old system, need a capitalism 2.0 in which money/profit isn't t singular variable to optimize for.
Capitalism is a blunt onesided tool, it goes full speed in only one direction and has no breaks.
It is just a gradient descent, more or less uncontrolled rolling downhill towards more profit.
Among many effects, big and small, it does enrich t quality of life for t general population, during some parts of its journey, but how do you stop all that power- and sentiment- "momentum" towards t end?
We need a new form of capitalism - a constructive capitalism - not destructive capitalism.
This will require, from t majority, knowledge, participation, responsibility, effort!
Need to keep implementing t good and well working parts: self-regulating market economy, constant and universal incentive for improvement/innovation/effort, organizational hierarchy where t best get self-organized into t right positions through competition.
If to "vote with your wallet", then that decision needs to be an informed one!
Upon choosing products, only price is being highlighted and thereby selected for - need to additionally highlight positive practices (which is done somewhat now), but also bad business practices, so that also goes into selection criteria.
It's actually quite a simple idea (practice may be different), connect t social factors to improve directly to corporations' bottom line.
Make t decisionmakers more or less responsible for t actions of t legal person (corporation) they are controlling.
Corporations can be seen as behaving, similar to people, as individuals in a society - where there can be rules to follow, a reputation to uphold, constant selfish incentive, consequences for behaviour. So that society, simply has to be well civilized, not be a lawless wild west.
Create in government additional organs being from t scientists and from business.
Have regulation be reasonable for both parties, not excessive/unnecessary micromanagement. (What are these many thousand pages long bills constantly being mentioned?)
Traditionally opposing ends working together!
Government makes sure to manage economy smart, not needlessly tight to t point of stiffness, take good quality decisions.
Business have in mind not just selfish profit, but also to enrich society - to a reasonable degree
rich try to live somewhat conservatively economically as a show of good faith and not take advantage of working class, while working class *somehow* makes sure to put in great effort and not spend money on too much unproductive crap, make smart and informed purchasing choices,
both ends of t spectrum working together – not rope pulling against eachother!
A total governing body of:
Business leaders and "elites".
- There is definitely expertise to be found here. This way they don't have to manipulate voting, it has been so de facto informally anyway, so make it formal, openness.
Academia from all fields but especially scientists/STEM*.
- To get real knowledge in decisions, almost entirely lacking right now.
Elected politicians.
- To still represent t whole people, this way can have greater rotation and representation of most current issues.
And, direct representation from t workers**.
- T weakest group when it comes to organization and influence while also being t most abused, underappreciated as well as needed.
This way there is no battle over who gets to be t single represented, no "tugging" of t whole voter base in each interest's direction, no manipulation of opinions in order to get represented, no infiltration of politics, when all need to cooperate and partake in direction and decisions.
Workers group would have proportional representation from each field of workers.
Among workers, whoever is contributing to a company doing business in this country, that means foreign workers, are to be asked about their say and included in representation - even though being in completely different countries!
The governing body and it’s individuals have an overarching ideology to improve on t whole and for everybody.
*STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Math
**Whoever works as an employee, for a salary.
Decisions should not just be binary switching around t 50% mark, but quality and consensus should be accounted for in considering t decision strong or weak, t closer to 100% consensus t better and stronger t decision.
Seeing a similarity to, and taking inspiration from decision making processes with neurons (biological or artificial), t clearer a decision feels to you, t more sure you are about it – t closer to 100% activation it is.
Inspired by how things are like in Starship Troopers and John McCain (are many more cases, apologies for only knowing one!), different areas of experience of life, and roles in society should be on résumé and selected for, and having gone through basic military training should be a major one, it is about discipline, humility, perspective and defence of ones group with ones life, t ultimate self-sacrifice, one needs to have understanding and deep respect for this, if one is to take decisions about it for others. But there needs to also be compassion and philosophy, any loss of life and unnecessary suffering is a failure.
(wouldn't want feminizt sjw safespaced special sensitive bubbleshielded snowflakes taking decisions on life and death war, maybe even wanting men to die, being a good thing by their ideology)
War is, I would say, among maybe other things:
- disagreement in thoughts/ideas, escalated to t ultimate level.
- a failure to settle on a deal, in a transaction, in any sub-violent manner, a disagreement between both sides, escalated to t ultimate level.
(Like CGP Greys explains about Pirates, give up peacefully or risk all our lives, including your lives, in battle and possible defeat.)
Winning t physical fight isn't necessarily being right, it is getting to set t rules, without being spoken against. In t vast majority of cases, it is a foul play shortcut around winning a verbal argument/fight. One that inescapably always exists. We should be glad that t one currently on top of t hill* is setting t rules to freely think, freely talk, freely joke/laugh, without getting physical, thereby being free in searching for t truth. Freedom isn't free, it must be defended, upheld, guarded.
"If you want peace, prepare for war". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
*Extremely glad in fact, because this is an example of t King Dilemma for my lack of a better term, whenever power is highly concentrated, t more it is concentrated, t greater t uncertainty in outcome becomes. Outcome being if t ruler is a good one or corrupt, will t ruler stay good or corrupt, for how long.
Advanced civilization and society developed in Europe likely because there was large variety of cultures closely packed together. With varying but not too much isolation. Probably due to varied terrain and climate (in PCGamingMasterRace terms: map meta). Who had to compete over resources and ideas.
Those who could be more stable internally, better organization, could develop knowledge and technology giving an advantage. Thereof laws and justice leading to a well functioning prosperous society was a necessity for survival. This is what is at stake of protecting and preserving now, a non-closed open free society, with freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of humour - that is at t same time still t most competitive!
(Maybe all of that, together with national identity and all, was just an illusion to trick into being productive. Whatever practice has been, the idea is at least sound. An idea that should be made true reality in any case!)
Can we as t whole population of Earth learn a lesson and draw conclusions from this?
In t best case scenario, least evil version... What if?
T Great Teacher using using such methods may have been one of those tough, lesser of two evils, utilitarian, pragmatic decisions. Hillary and t "church of feminizm & sjw" would have probably had legendary lack of Vitamin N, and messed everything up.
Just like Deng Xiaoping ordered t Tiananmen Square Massacre, to keep course (probably also influenced by and not wanting to repeat its earlier overtaking by protesters), and Deng Xiaoping same as later Xi Jinping deciding to better in t future, now in 2020, have large prosperity and be a superpower having an own independent say in t world, according to t conclusions from "T Melian Dialogue", than to be weak and bullied by Murrica. Who knows, maybe this kept Murrica in check from abusing t power of getting a far too dominant position, so in theory, China can possibly have saved us from Murrica turning tyrannical, by itself turning such. But t path has been a pragmatic one, very collectivist and utilitarian, t collective gains at t cost/sacrifice of t Chinese individual humans.
Like with t 2 nuclear bombs, it is possible that this early isolated demonstration of its horror saved t world from a future catastrophe of 10/100/1000 bombs.**
It's all about what is in t mind of t masses, if t masses would want a mass extermination of a certain group of people, it can become reality. And now we have an example* firmly ingrained in our minds to scare away from taking such a path.
Maybe t whole war was to show and remind of what bad times are like, what evil is and can do, remind why staying good is important, what selfishness en masse can lead to, are we due for a next lesson?
So can we grow up from being children, be mature and intelligent enough from now on to not need to repeat such situations?
*T Jews could have been t most manipulative to secure themselves future, now, benefits. Or made a great self-sacrifice for t benefit of all future mankind. Or both. Or none, being passive victims.
Muslims are today, in many ways, “t new Jews”.
They are hated, unwanted, blamed, in many cases oppressed or outright violently/lethally persecuted, in Soviet/Russia, Rohingya in Myanmar, Uyghurs in China.
**(Or it was more seizing a vanishing opportunity like T Mad Queen at t end of GoT.)
If ww2 was needed to bring Murrica out of t Great Depression, then what if we are set for ww3 now?
And if that happens, freedoms and rights may get thrown right out t window - since it is wartime. Maybe this is to some a desireable state of t world, to gain power. Therefore wartime must not be allowed to be an excuse to withdraw freedom and liberty!
People who have it good stop caring about anything other than self, focus inwards, hedonism, selfishness, not directly apathy per se, but putting larger surrounding out of sight and out of mind, partly because of t feeling of powerlessness in feeling that one cannot change anything, understandable, but also because it simply selfishly allows for greater hedonism, "path of least emotional load".
En masse a collective behaviour emerges, with a certain direction and momentum. Sheepdogs/wolves can partly influence this, but partly t collective behaviour of t sheep herd has its own mechanisms of choosing direction, influenced very little by single individuals, but very much by en masse beliefs.
In order for communism (and socialism) to work and why it hasn’t, is because maybe they require a certain mindset en masse. By default, humans are completely lazy and selfish, when not forced by external factors to make an effort (and be good nonselfish people to others), I of all know how hard it is to, consistently, not procrastinate and get yourself doing something productive, and consistently keeping discipline high! This is why capitalism works well, no one needs to care about anything.
Need a system where everyone with effort can reach a high quality of life, with t current resource availability of t planet, distributing would spread it very thin, or as now, some have and many are excluded. So we need to be fewer for each to have more (accomplished in a morally defendable way ofcourse), distribute a little more evenly, but also living within sustainability and environmentally friendly, meaning each doing their part in not wasting t planets natural resources.
This overpopulation could be deliberate tradeoff to maximize intellect “potential energy”, because height in intelligence and number amount both matter, to maximize technological development, to maximize prosperity.
What mindset en masse then? ...this is a small part of what I was thinking about and formulated, while philosophizing in heavenly peace up until end of 2018, before getting a taste of hell 2019. From end 2019Q1, I wouldn’t say it is complete, but at least it's a good start, a good foundation of very basics, in my opinion: https://imgur.com/a/xE3l2pv (preferably think, but yes, you can laugh, free humour all t way!).
Economoics Explained https://www.youtube.com/user/JitaLounge/videos
beat me and this text to t everything private argument, with t video
Do We Actually Need Taxes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfmUrw0gDiU
but at t same time it confirmed to me that I was on a very correct track.
He helped me a lot in understanding capitalism, particularly t video about t Economy of Germany was an Eureka moment in understanding capitalism!
[my ~5 years old Capitalism short story]
In the beginning of capitalism, corporations and people are both small and both have it bad, they both are are so to say, in the same boat. The common goal for these two teams is giving something in return for getting something, to have more. So the two teams with identical and mutually exclusive interests nonetheless have to find a good balance, because, their progresses are ironically interdependent on each other.
One of these parties constantly has to evolve tactics, adapt, find new ways of competing as a whole, while the other isn't an organized whole, is divided into individuals that depend on the former and don't have a plan just surviving life 1 day at a time.
In the intermediate phase, both have lifted each other up to a better existence, but corporations like always have to compete, get more, increase their existence. So a beneficial thing is to form collaboration, either by acquisition making a bigger new entity, or by existing entities forming mutually beneficial arrangements reducing competition and/or facilitating play against the other team. Progress can be improved by getting that other team to do their part and, if possible, for less in return. In this situation tactics naturally arise within the tactical team of less infighting and more focus against the opposing team that is mostly oblivious.
In this situation it is clear to the clever that more focus against the opposing team instead of infighting is most beneficial, so tactics naturally arise within the tactical team of conflicting less and playing more against the opposing team that is mostly oblivious.
Out of curiousity, where can you imagine our story going from here?
The more one can get while at the same time giving less, is a great shortcut for more progress, but how does one accomplish that without your victim realising? What if the simple minded could be tricked that less is more, if part of the improved existence payment was just an unnoticed costless illusion? With promises of a better existence, and hindrance of any form of organization, cooperation or teamplay and cleverly conceived mindgames, leading in scores is made easier than ever.
In the end, the team with teamplay and gameplan has realized it can reach its maximal potential and stand best on it's own feet by being completely unified as one whole. As it shows now when one huge unified entity has complete and total power over the single scattered and divided constituents of the other team. The dependence is now almost exclusively in only one direction, and can be taken advantage of as much as desired.
But surely the winning teams isn't evil nor unethical, but a good sport fully willing to share?
The competition within that team amongst themselves is for attracting participation of the members of the opposing team.
But in the end, this has flipped and now the single individuals have to fight amongst themselves to have the opportunity to get some essential something from the now unified team whose gameplan was a total victory.
[bigger world picture]
This now puts China in a different light. They seem to precisely be experimenting with a different take on “Capitalism” than that of t Murrica-Western. China has a top-led central party that seemingly holds almost absolute power, in that they can disappear anyone, hence they set t agendas for all of t players. It’s like t capitalism players have a certain regulation which they must obey. And they are getting party memebers aboard every board of directors, further “steering” decisionmaking. Moreover, contrary to t west, outside of their “private sphere” - there is no “public sphere” for anyone to worry about! Problem solved! In return t country as a whole has a very productive working force, good decisions are being taken in a unified direction, all-in-all “efficiency” is high. Working force gets close to minimal, so little of t country’s resources/labour/time goes into making what workers would want to consume for their work, while those who decide what is to be worked on, what direction to go in, “t country”, gets what it desires, and so it can grow its technology and manufacturing, knowledge/research, weapons arsenal in quality and quantity, military.
Now this is what t world’s only super-power is up against, “competing”, which I would say is responsible for a lot of developments, for better or for worse.
So, poetically speaking, t New Conglomerate and t Terran Republic are competing over who can enslave their population t best?
With North Korea it has been proven that non-freedom totalitarianism can be an indefinitely working stable self-enforcing social system on a smaller scale, while China has proven t same on a large scale - plus being competitive to, or even outcompeting a free society.
On t other hand, China has “broken free” from t dependence on Murrica and its products, they develop and manufacture their own microprocessors and electronics, same with software services and communication. China together with Russia have also broken free from Murrica’s cultural influence, so in case t west goes to hell, there at least is another separate chance. But t cost has been slavery. What I would like to see is having t best of both worlds. T point isn't to become hostile or hateful towards China (especially not against regular citizens), but to unite for a beautiful common solution.
And we have to find a peaceful, logical, intelligent, humanitarian solution, to reiterate, leading towards a slavery-free, free world, with free thought and free speech and free humour! Because we are, right now in this current world, accepting and appeasing a certain unmentionable regime, history is repeating, China you are accepting this certain regime, Europe is accepting this certain regime, Slavs are accepting this certain regime, Murrica is accepting this certain regime - because it is more profitable, people not having rights, being slaves, is more profitable to t masters - and to t surrounding populations of t world. For this I cannot, for this I will not stand.
T solution must be peaceful, mutual and constructive, but also actual, decisive, swiftest and unwavering.
But first I would like to ask something of you China, you are t key, you are who North Korea sees closest to itself, like a big sibling, save their people, help them unite, you are in t best position, numba 1, unity. Motherland I am sure will also help you out in this, since having suffered through two world wars is deeply engrained in our culture, MIR.
China and North Korea, how can your peoples freedoms be restored and suffering decreased? Are you even able to change in that direction even if you wanted to? Or is t self-censorship locking you in to a certain path? If every member of t decision apparatus can only speak in one direction, and self-censors in any other, are you then free? Help us help you.
Ukraine, Russia, Crimea, Ireland, Hong Kong.
Since Soviet times, going from western Ukraine, to eastern Ukraine bordering Russia, there is a gradient in population ethnicity:
Russian identifying and speaking Slavs in majority, in t easternmost parts of Ukraine bordering to Russia.
Ukrainian identifying and speaking Slavs in majority, in most western parts of Ukraine not close to bordering to Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#Ethnic_groups and Languages sections.
Ukraine’s people wanted towards west, towards EU, away from Russia, to not have a Russian puppet government. They have all t rights to decide this. This was t 2014 Euromaidan protests and revolution. In protesting, Ukrainian-Ukrainian Slavs had to be nationalistic – inso, en masse in people’s minds, everything/anything and everyone Russian was seen negative, hostile and hated, light version of but similar to Jews during Nazi Germany, hence one side was called Fascists. Was not a nice time and place being Russian-Ukrainian Slav. T populations of those areas made armed resistance, pro-Russia and against Ukraine, hence t other side was called Terrorists.
Russia ofcourse has a geopolitical strategic interest in Crimea, and it sent in its military forces to protect t people there from Ukrainian military forces. Later t Crimean population voted to belong to Russia. (Muslim Tatars have long been oppressed.) This situation isn’t black, nor is it white, it is a grey area. There are valid points on all sides and lots of discussions to be had. But remember that we are all slavs, all humans, all neighbors, all intellects.
T whole world went up in arms about this as Russia militarily invading, violently conquering Ukrainian land. While it is almost t same situation as with Ireland, and Northern Ireland belonging to t UK. T population of Northern Ireland, many of who are colonists from GB, chose to belong to t UK because of t Protestant religion, contrary to t rest of Ireland being for Catholicism. In that case then, be just as up in arms for Northern Ireland to be given back to Ireland.
Both of those are t peoples’ will.
But what you should really be up in arms about, at least as much as t “Russian invasion and takeover”, is over Hong Kong. Which went from an independent own mini country, with democracy and de:Rechtsstaat, a free society with freedoms of speech, thought, humour, to forcefully being taken over by Mainland China, who imposes their nonexistent laws system, a de:Obrigkeitsstaat, completely arbitrary law dictated by t whim of t central party, even at t police officer level arbitrarily determined by t officer in t moment. [link to illegal is wrong] https://imgur.com/a9d70ip
China and Hong Kong is almost identical to Nazi Germany takeover/invasion/annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, during appeasement by t surrounding world, history repeating.
Appeasement - How the West Helped Hitler Start WW2 | BETWEEN 2 WARS I 1938 Part 1 of 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpmFvu_0Auk
by TimeGhost History https://www.youtube.com/c/TimeGhost/videos
Team Private supports BLM because:
1: It leads to divide (and conquer, in general).
2: It can be used towards t goal of dismantling a Team Public Police, in favor of a privatized one. Everyone with money can afford to hire private security, and do during t protests, even some of those calling for Defund t Police. It is t poor that will be without, will eventually get an even lower quality policing service, so now there will be tiers, classes of Police, for t different classes of society.
3: It divides, turning people against police and vice versa, turns police against t people, making agreeing to carry out bad orders with bad actions against t population easier to perform. Do you want hk in t west? Do you really want a hateful and hated police force? Dis is not de wey mah bruddahs...
Mah black bruddahs (and sistahs), I want to see an uncorrupted democratic prosperous African Union! Make Africa Great! Listen to Nana Akufo-Addo of Ghana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E22oUbJGH3I
One of t biggest things you can do in t world, is to Make Africa Great! It is one of t biggest humanitarian acts possible, it is one of t biggest ways of striking back at t racism, it is one of t most needed things in t world to save t birthplace of humanity from even more slavery coming!
Not by Murricans for t profit of Murrica, not by Europeans for t profit of Europe, not by Chinese for t profit of China, but by humanitarian humans from t world for t prosperity of Africa!
I think, hoping not being wrong, I now see some method to t madness, why t right has done what it has done, in tricking for economy, concentrating, to ensure that which t Founding Fathers understood needed to be preserved, an open free world. Something like this being able to be thought, said/written, laughed about.
Bernie
T Great Teacher isn't t establishment because he is one usually buying t establishment!
T Great Teacher is t rich elected directly, no need to rule through a proxy step by buying politicians with campaign funding.
Bernie not bought and not rich.
Biden is business-as-usual as cookie-cutter typical establishment as you can get, Biden is just a self-censored, electable mannequin looking good in a shop window smiling, toothless and harmless.
What is Biden going to do against Trump? He will be no match versus t resourcefully foul play of T Great Teacher, and all t capitalist powers at play. Will be a pushover establishment government.
If you want anti-establishment then Bernie is your man!
He got to where he is, not through promises to rich parties with special interests - in exchange for campaign-ad-money, but through grass-roots, through true popularity of t people stemming from his opinions. This amount of success in this manner is unprecedented!
If t establishment is rule by t rich then, yeah, my point.
Business as usual Biden, or, put some fire into t system Bernie?
Further, Biden is just an elections placeholder, t real president you’re electing will be t woman he chooses as his vice-president, he will then shortly resign due to not being fit for duty. And I am sorry for sounding horrible, but I have very little faith in that a Democrat Party woman has what it takes. But on t other hand, don’t know many candidates in general among politicians, to begin with.
Lisa Su of AMD tho, now we talkin! Just look at them business practices, a successful and not greedy-foulplaying company. Fully serious, would trust that!
(Biden, mate, my apologies for being a total a-hole towards you!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Prisoner_of_war
After being through all that, not choosing preferential treatment, over his fellow POWs, when given t option, being a high-status person because of his fathers position.
This is a man! This is manly behaviour, manly strength, manly principles, honor and conscience.
This I will always have t deepest of respects for! Cannot even imagine going through that myself!
This is what T Great Teacher mocked. I would’ve been very curious to see this soft rich kid be subjected to t same fate, to see how much of John McCain he would have lived up to.
Let my choice of t word “man/manly” not detract from that women as well are capable of enduring horrors, and most definitely have as captives. My choice is partly because there isn’t a unisex version, that I know of, that conveys t same weight.
T real threat with t great teacher isn't himself per se, it's every position he fills and what people he fills them with, while himself just being a diversion/distraction, classic, standard, tried and true magician tactics.
This is how Net Neutrality was removed. A foul, dishonest and underhanded tactic.
Bernie is t only one who has t balls to take on T Great Teacher.
Bring back Bernie!
With T Great Teacher versus Bernie:
This may be one of your single ONLY chances to affect politics through voting.
“Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here's how we fix it | Larry Lessig | TEDxMidAtlantic” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
(by TEDx Talks https://www.youtube.com/user/TEDxTalks/videos )
This is an election of extremes, determining future direction between two radically opposite directions. One side is set up to be t default leaning direction, as has always been t case, it is mainly on t side of t very few, t other side is on t side of t many and has been crippled and sabotaged from all sides, including from t inside.
One direction has more freedom, t other potentially has less, depending on t specifics with Team Public and Team Private.
Captured perfectly in this illustration by Ben Garrison called The March Of Tyranny
https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/march_of_tyranny1.jpg
T electorate colleges, where t top party in a state gets to represent t whole state, is a system that converges to a two party outcome. Because it is only t two biggest parties in each state that there is any point in voting for, t third largest in most cases cannot make any difference.
Bernie may be able to truly take on t powerful and t system.
One downside I fear though with Bernie is that due to t nature of t left, he will have it hard to impossible to get any “Vitamin N” in t own camp. Will most likely be a “Vitamin N deficiency”, when it is one of t essential Vitamins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3cgUhtRUbE
Bernie, you have to be able to be a meanie and
say "NO!", within your own camp,
say NO to your whole people,
say NO to to other countries on a world scale,
this is what I must commend and respect T Great Teacher for, he negotiates extremely well, he can be disagreeable. But he is not going to say NO to Team Private's motives and direction, that is his own camp.
What is needed is some one who can say all of these NO while actually being mainly - but not onesidedly - on t side of Team People!
Who can fix up t grossly inefficient, wasteful, full of leaky holes, vitamin N deficient apparatus that is T Public Government/sector that has been infiltrated and sabotaged from within by Team Private. Make it a tightly run ship to be respected and on t side of Team People, not corrupted to serve Team Private.
T Great Teacher may now very well actually be independent of campaign funding, he has an actual following and popularity. Much like Paris Hilton when I was growing up.
This is no proof of that elections cannot "be bought" - they cannot be only bought - without doing/accomplishing anything else, but buying campaign ads still plays one of t biggest roles.
In t end it is about publicity, becoming familiar to people, working towards being a "household name", like in t famous quote ~"There isn’t any such thing as bad publicity.", he is now simply using his position, together with press/media and controversy, which accomplishes t same goal. But also together with genuine popularity through displaying a great personality (hopefully genuine and not an orchestrated act carefully constructed by a team behind t curtains).
Cambridge Analytica is a private business in t UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica
About individual people, millions, two thirds of US, they collected as much information as they could get hold of on social media like FaceBook, whatever is publicly available, whatever more could be gained by having access/insight into an account who has befriended targets (for those setting show to friends or to friends of friends), whatever more could be gained by planting special FaceBook apps with this ulterior motive.
By analyzing this collected personal data, with increasingly advanced and sophisticated methods/algorithms a surprisingly accurate profiling of personality could be done for each individual. This can be used to model (loosely: simulate) individuals and populations/groupings. This in turn can and was used to predict behaviour, specifically for t purposes of manipulation.
An AI can be trained on this data with t goal of maximizing public positivity response to a certain politicians behaviour, actions and statements. This tool can be one, two maybe even three orders of magnitude more powerful than any team of human “spin doctors”*! As an analogy it is like having a secret expert talking through an earpiece in your ear, telling you exactly what to say and how to behave for optimal outcome.
This is my way of explaining how and why T Great Teacher has acted in such completely novel ways, completely counterintuitive ways – and yet had such enormously great success in them! It is like with Google’s DeepMind AI playing StarCraft2 against humans and it does new and novel things that no professional SC2 gamer ever would think of – and to great effect! Even, in some cases being skeptical witnessing it, until later seeing t efficacy of result.
(Cambridge Analytica was aswell used for t BREXIT vote.)
T larger question is if this truly is honest politics, within t bounds of democracy, if t public opinion can be manipulated with algorithms 10 or 100 times more powerful than human ability. Is it still then a choice? But like mentioned before, if after a mandate period with T Great Teacher, all of this feminizm&sjw is this bad, imagine having had Hillary instead, both domestically and internationally.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(propaganda)
Oh, yeah, now compare this with t huge scandal of Russia basically literally putting monkeys on typewriters. Yeah, focus on t real manipulation threat here. lål
(Reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem )
According to this video, T Great Teacher seemed to have failed and helped China.
Trump's Biggest Failure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMAt3BluAU
(by Kraut https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr_Q-bPpcw5fJ-Oow1BW1NQ/videos )
Though during t time between COVID-19 lockdowns and HK invasion, actions were/are taken.
But right now, around t invasion of HK and forward, China seems to be acting completely irratically hostile to all in its surroundings and trade partners, almost like closing off, almost like North Korea. (Here, I don’t know, mostly wild speculations.)
(Also, kicking away Iran, now landed them in t open arms of China.)
T left democrats, out of those visible, have nothing even coming close to Bernie Sanders in terms of strength of character, proper strong values of goodness, together with compassion and goodheartedness.
But Bernie is still softer than T Great Teacher, who is questionable on some aspects, but on t other hand is very good internationally.
Were t Democratic party to gain power, they would bend to sjw centralized socialism fascism.
Were t Republican party to gain power, they would bend to late-stage capitalism socialism fascism.
How about disregarding t parties, just having:
Bernie + T Great Teacher for president and vice president (order up for discussion)!
It’s unthinkably outside of t box, but I do believe they complement eachother very well.
Bernie cares for t people, while T Great Teacher seems to have done and be doing a good job internationally. Both are of very strong, determined and passionate character, Bernie t more extravertedly passionate, T Great Teacher more cool headed and passionate through action.
Feminizm & sjw
In wars, among t conquered population, men are killed first – to reduce t risk of revolt.
It is not t feminists you need to worry about, it’s your Corporate commander overlords in Team Private that don’t want strong willed and opinionated subordinates workers.
It is they who want t docile servile feminized little boys that are good at following what they’re told never stepping out of line.
So by making sensitivity pervasive, by lowering t bar for tolerance arbitrarily low – far below reasonableness, by in this way removing any reasonableness, thereby creating and encouraging a sensitivity culture, wherein one is never knowing when someone for any reason, utterance or action will deem you “uncomfortable” and secretly report you for offending somebody sensitive.
In so instituting a strong self-censorship culture with a hidden and silent fear of sticking out, not fitting in, where you never know what utterance may offend any sensitive intolerant to unlikethinkers, you end up “walking on eggshells” never knowing if your next step will be on a mine.
Being talked to by t weakness "church of feminizm&sjw" it is very comfortable and tempting and very hard to resist, very hard to not start considering oneself as a victim, turning one's whole life's struggles and hardships into one big injustice making one a victim worthy and deserving of reparations and compensation for t past, and now can relax for t future, in addition to becoming part of a supportive community that embrace you with this comfort. Being "forgiven/freed" from any and all responsibility of how one's life looks like, getting a scapegoat to attribute all of t blame onto. But true and genuine things are hard, falseness often has deceptively pretty lures, and an easy way almost certainly has a catch, this is a very alluring corruption not easy to withstand.
Guys, don't beat and bully them, they are just where so many of us have been ourselves, average frustrated chump, incel, low self-esteem, low confidence, just that in masculine culture t rules are: stfu with t whining and crying, you're a man move on, do best you can, if you find a way then that's great if not well continue in hardship. But in female culture none of those standards need to be held up and feelings are to be shown all over t place, so victimization runs rampant, instead of not having any other choice than dealing with t situation and problems with t only way out being somehow finding a solution, so they get stuck at t whining phase of t journey, and BOOM you have this "church of feminizm & sjw" where they congregate. But really, we should show them de wey mah bruddahs, jes!
Muh bruddahs, don hate, don laugh, too much, it’s hard I know, but offer a helping hand and a friendly smile, be da bigger an da bettar MAN!
They are kinda like us, but WITH t option to aggregate and reinforce self-pity in snowballing amounts, a positive void coefficient, and thereby WITHOUT being forced to find a solution to fix sh*t with and within oneself as t only option. Therefore they need to be shown da wey of having true confidence and strength!
If we men complain to eachother we'll just be met with ridicule "oh, so you're a little pussy?" "oh you don't like this? *tries to replicate more of thing*", so we have no option but to suck it up, try finding a solution. On t other, feminine side though, they are all for emotional support, there t weak and those who victimize themselves can aggregate into a supportive community through which together they get influence.
I've both been a bully, and received back a factor of 10+ times of bullying through most of my life, I know what both sides are like.
This is what insecurity, low confidence, humourlessness, average frustrated chump and incel looks like on t other side, imagine how extremely much worse it must be for them since they are only judged by looks, contrary to us who can develop personality, skills, career, etc. as bargaining chips. Another very important difference, we men, have a very old tried and true template/mold and instruction manual of howto to turn to, and it is a singular one and it is enforced strongly, they don’t have any at all, hence they aimlessly randomly explore all kinds of possibilities (possibility space) ending up in all of t colourful novel identities that can be observed.
What you feminists have a problem with isn't truly manly confident men, but badly behaved people.
There are a few of you who do not believe in this ridiculousness at all, who are agents from an outside other side just pretend and act, to whip up a frenzy with ulterior motives to set this movement going and use its effects to own benefit.
Then there a few of you who wholeheartedly believe in t cause and movement and likewise get it going sustained and growing.
Then there is t majority who buy t message and join/follow.
Lastly, there are sympathizers who aren't intimately familiar but support t broad strokes and underlying origin/core ideas.
Welcome to this imperfect world, which is one big imperfect situation, made up of many smaller imperfect situations, inhabited by imperfect actors.
You have turned t left into libtards, "church of feminizm & sjw", identity politics, microaggressions, gender this and that, it no longer has anything to do with, nor any appeal from, t working man/woman/class, no sensible person can or wants to associate with that utterly nonsensical illogical childish ridiculousness, moreover it is creating a self-censorship* secret-reporting culture like t ones under fascism, tyranny and dictatorships. Women and feminism, gay-bi, trans, queer, +, t rainbow flag, no longer symbolizes a struggle for equal rights, acceptance, freedom, but instead symbolizes oppression and tyranny and hatred.
When ideology goes before truth, science, logic, when speech and thought is forbidden, then history with science versus church is repeated.
You have been tricked to this by agents acting and pretending from Team Private.
*What self-censorship is, it is t reason all this isn't able to be said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
Modern western feminism (~fourth wave) is made fun of through memes, it says such extreme and unreasonable things, cannot be taken seriously.
Your fervor and zeal is misdirected, direct it at something that is an actual injustice that actually matters, that is hard to deal with, that puts you at risk.
There are two genders, period. With biological differences. With masculine and feminine gender roles. This is originated from evolution and defined by biology, science. Anything other is from modern human culture and its complexity. As in non-cave/jungle hunter-gatherer. And it isn't necessarily wrong and can coexist. (hell, given enough time, gender won't even matter, only one's intellect, consciousness, will. until then,) cis heteronormative IS t norm, it is normal* per definition. And there's nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't forbid something other to coexist.
*Definition being similar to t vast majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution .
Gender roles are an interplay of hereditary, environmental. More environmental than hereditary.
A non-animal intellectual can learn about and recognize instincts and that way be free to make a conscious decision of otherwise.
Here’s some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
This new thing that I don't have a good name for which is: left but not about left, feminist but not about feminist, sjw(?), lgbtq+ rights but not about lgbtq+ rights, t equality and gender issues but not about equality and gender issues, identity politics(?), these political-correctness hypersensitive people that have started taking up these issues and continued (much) further beyond each issues' logical scope... these individuals are t ultimate expression of first world problems (dagens i-lands problem, Hipp Hipp!) ignoring all t actual serious things going on in t world, for them t biggest issue visible is overinterpreting that somebody said something offensive. It is like t ultimate expression of affluence and luxury in privileges of ones existence.
It is a very easily chosen distraction – easy to agree because seemingly good motives, and presents no personal risk/cost of advocating, is very "safe" – and a tool for control through which anyone with strong opinions get filtered out, only t quiet ones without opinions, or those with non-challenging opinions get to be part of positions that can influence. This is just for control. This movement among t broad masses is just clever social engineering and is just used as a tool by t top organizers who couldn't give an f about t principles of t movement, they're just using it as an ends to a means, for control, personal gain for their group.
Instead of caring who says what, take on something real that makes a big difference in t world, not just t most privileged world, not relatively petty things like extreme sensitivity, but actual hard things on a world scale. Like human rights, war, slavery, animal treatment. Otherwise you risk being simply socially engineered into this harmless distraction, when t real and big crimes are gotten away with while you choose playing in t safe riskfree playground sandbox of who called who something naughty, feeling that you make oh so big of a difference.
According to me, why so many today feel bad, is that you are forced into corruption and feel powerless to do anything about it. That there are no true and truly noble goals to have great dedication and conviction towards. To stand up to t good values - that is a challenge which requires strength and will test you and let you prove yourself!
When you can act t opposite of selfishly because being cowardly.
When you can stand up to t group, stand up for something unpopular.
When you tell t truth, no matter how hard it is. When you don't lie out of cowardice, out of being afraid of t consequences.
When you stay consistent and stay to your word, no matter who is in front of you, no matter t situation.
When you are not part of t bystander effect.
When you can think and act independently of t group.
Selfishness and conformity is easy, in fact it is THE easiest, to simply flow along t stream, follow t flock. But a real man does that which is hard, that which is a challenge, that which requires courage, that which may cost oneself instead of bringing gain to oneself - a self-sacrifice.
To be a man also means to have ones emotions in check and being t bigger man in conflict and disagreement, that means to protect, not harm, someone weaker. That means respecting women and being able to handle rejection by either taking that blow like a man, or remaking it into something optimistic, then truly wishing her all t best, never mental nor physical aggression or violence, you have to get her to choose you out of her own free will, never coerced - that makes your accomplishment lesser, weak insecure cowardly little boys act like this.
This is what being a man is, if you fail in this, you're not a man, you're just a cowardly pussy beta small-dicked little boy.
And there are of course women out there living up to these standards of a person, putting t vast majority of XY to shame.
This is t men you women should select for, not t ones who screw someone over for personal gain, not t ones who dare not speak nor act, not t ones who do/say anything to please their environment, who conform out of fear of not following t flock/herd, not t cowardly balless conformist herdsheep pussies who never will dare to stand up for t right thing. T ones who bend and adapt, to fit and please their environment, who selfishly and cowardly always take t easiest most pleasant path, with least risk and danger and discomfort to self - those little boys will never defend nor stand up for you nor t right thing when their own wellbeing is at risk in a tough situation or choice, their loyalties will be to self.
[link to standing up for t right thing] https://imgur.com/D9gL86j
First and second wave feminism is about equal rights, equal opportunity and equal responsibility.
In t developed west there is no gender wage gap, it is a few percent, equal work gives equal pay.
What you confuse is total income averaged for Team Men vs total income averaged for Team Women, where work IS NOT equal, due to different preferences and choices in life. Also related is female underrepresentation in high/top positions.
There are many reasons for this that have nothing with oppressive sexist discrimination to do.**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology (Ethics and moral orientation section is somewhat interesting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis this especially, because t higher positions require a higher bar, where t difference in variance comes into play.
Without having a source, very sure I’ve come across that men are more competitive in psyche.
**One of t most important and first rules of science learned is that “correlation does not mean causation” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Housework IS payed for, indirectly, by t man earning and paying more into/for t household and its expenses - providing t others with an easier lifestyle in terms of hard work in education/career/job. Likewise, housework IS contributing to that man being able to focus more time on career, job, income, not having to spend that time on home duties. It is a symbiosis with tradeoffs for each side.
A woman can be provided for by a man, that way get a MUCH easier life compared to work/career effort put in, t opposite isn't true, no man ever has this option.
One always has t option to take an easy way out - find a provider - t other has no choice but t hard way. In part because each has different selection criteria - an asymmetry*! which are fully free choices, there are no arranged marriages, with great freedom comes great responsibility, being a slave to ones animal instincts is not t fault of "patriarchy"/"matriarchy". "Be a man, take responsibility and stand for your choices."
Men select mainly for physical attractiveness, best deal he can get.
Women select mainly for what can be provided, material/financial - for socioeconomic status (in t safe danger-free modern world), best deal she can get.
This in a way is good, meaning that man is ambitious, hardworking and productive, but maybe you should put more weight on quality/strength of character, ideology, resistance to corruption, goodness, compassion/empathy, selflessness, resistance to peer pressure, ability to be uncomfortable having t courage to go against t stream - to make t world better - instead of just adapting to anything and everything for more money.
Instead, choose t actual masculine good men, not t cowardly weak little boys.
Finally, good masculinity is a subtle and hidden trait of character - not a physical appearance, it cannot be easily directly observed. And likewise, any physically impressive cocky confident loudmouth - because this is under all-easy situations - can in this sense really be a weak little boy when a difficult situation, a hard choice presents itself!
In short, developed western society gives very equal opportunity for education and career.
Your selection in partner affects your selection in lifepath, and vice versa, both influenced by biological animal instincts. "-Break the wheel! -Daenerys"
To not be selfishly maximizing what can be brought to you along your interests.
*T asymmetry, according to me, is t biological difference in pregnancy and arising from t biological differences related to procreation. Pregnancy is t one thing that needs to be appreciated, valued and compensated for, in some smart, clever and fair way built into t system, to not be an unfair handicap in career and life.
T current traditional way can be argued "compensates pregnancy" already, but by offering women to be provided for with an easier life.
So what is asked for is then a second alternative. Wherein women should, in addition, have an equal opportunity to men, to put in equal effort in education and workplace, and through that be equally able to attain accomplished careers - without getting pregnant being a factor affecting anything!
This second alternative has actually been mostly possible for several decades - through household economic decisions and/or choice of partner. But that involves not maximizing household income and/or choosing a partner of lower socioeconomic status. Which is made impossible, in part, through animal instinctual hypergamy among women but also hypogamy among men.
One has a passive position of attracting and choosing – while t other has an active position of initiative, performing, creating, bringing, presenting, impressing, deserving to be a choice.
Imagine there exists a physical performance competition, like say t Olympics, with a large number of competitors (arbitrary, but say maybe 1000), ambitiously qualifying in.
Now you give half of t competitors a special rule: if you become a couple with a competitor, then you get a copy of their prize in your own name. How would t real prizes look for t two halves?
T point is not to exactly model an existing system, but is to show in a simplest possible way that a starting conditions asymmetry can have an emergent behaviour and outcome.
(Unintended and somewhat humorous connection: women are for, and for using, social welfare to relax with less work and be provided for externally.)
Here's an angle to consider: you wamen who demand to get higher positions, unearned, because your team, on average, is less earned to begin with - disrespect t real women, who succeeded having competed under t same conditions - by undermining and invalidating their accomplishments!
What is really a feminist? A strong will overcoming obstacles putting in effort outside of comfort zone, or someone who whines about wanting special treatment?
You are looking at t wrong end, you want everything else around to change and adapt so that you become equal, everything except yourselves.
There are no shortcuts in life, everything is hard work, we men can teach you!
I say inspire to equality, let children growing up repeatedly hear that with dedication and hard work they can become anything they want, then work on making opportunity reasonably equal, mostly focusing on removing foul play from competition, that's it, then let t system naturally evolve to its natural state.
There are women who have reached top positions by performing under same standards applied, or even more admirable, under harder unfair standards. They are vastly different personalities from t ones taken t easy way out, and those mediocre performing.
Victoria’s Secret Angels is peak femininity combined with peak physical shape/fitness, to accomplish a pinnacle of human female physical attractiveness, biologically speaking signaling good genes in terms of physical health and appearance, mental health and successful socially, fertility.
Not everybody, far from it, is born as beautiful, with such good genes, including myself, it is a lottery which hand of cards one gets dealt and how one chooses to play. But t physical fitness part everyone has in their hands! (together with personality, grooming, clothing) Yes it is work, hard work, time consuming work, to work out like them. But also what they eat, or much rather everything not to eat, everything to stay away from eating, that is difficult work just as well! Nothing that is valued is gotten easy, that is per definition. Anything people are admired for has great dedication and efforts put in behind it. Nothing is for free.
Body positivity? That requires no effort whatsoever! Not to mention being unhealthy in t larger quantities. Why in t world would it be included?
Trans and +? that can never per definition reach peak biological/genetic femininity, scientifically speaking, so it is besides t goal.
Men are equally ruled out, not like we're complaining, we have our own displays of maximization.
On april 29:th, late evening before Valborg (Valborgsmässoafton, Walpurgis Night, very fitting when reading up on it), I was biking fast in traffic, chose main road instead of t bike one, was a car standing still blocking most of t lane, was about to pass around, saw a meeting car, checked roadwidth to be ~2.5 carwidths, went ahead with tightly turning around t first and past t second car, which seemed to slow down, looked back a couple times, is that a police car standing still back there? Keep on rollin', crossing a bridge, police car rolls up next to me, previous question answered, I bike up to them after t bridge, am greeted by t gentlest softest caring female voice:
~"Hej, how is it with you? How is it going?"
~"It's about that overtaking back there?" I say.
We talk a little back and forth very friendly, down to earth, respectful, with her and her also very friendly male colleague officer driver. I explain I checked for plenty space, he explains he got afraid of collision, I totally agree in making a bad move, apologize, she explains it's for my own safety, I say that I am not disagreeing with that.
Apart from regretting behaving respectlessly to a fellow roadmate, I kick myself for not thinking about it in-t-moment, and potentially not having t balls to, politely, ask t cute female officer out for lunch, to at least talk lots about her perspective in t police force, and possibly also a date!
A sensmoral I take from t story is that t friendlyness and good sv:bemötande is a result of feminine traits which made a situation, that in t vast majority of times would be shades of unpleasant, in this case very pleasant, so much so it is in fact very memorably memorable. So there may very well be something to getting women into positions to have a more varied perspective and approach!
Terrorists have resisted and revolted against basically t whole world, seriously risking and willingly giving their lives, but in t process harming innocents, so t ideology, thought, means and ends aren't very defendable to be just.
More or less organized gangs, who are more or less criminal have resisted and revolted and risk themselves, reasons, goals, means and ideology also not very defendable.
Terrorists and criminal don’t contribute to society though, but are leeches on it, only being able to exist because of contributions of others. Not making any usable energy (food) nor usable products/tools, instead using by workers produced means to destroy, not build nor create, but defending ideas or being able to not conform at least.
T immigrants coming all t way to Sweden, pictured in long dense lines/groups of people, accused of “being on their way because having of t encommon conspiratorial goal to invade and take over t western society” have most likely gone through some real shit and risked their lives on their way, going away from cities bombed to rubble, collapsed non-functioning society, warring factions, refugee camps, etc. While those accusers active on t internet, watching YouTube videos and writing text to pictures are sitting in their comfortable lives in Swedish villas in t very comfort and safespace Swedish society, with all daily needs easily met, to a point not even considered. Just saying, what would you do in that situation? Stay put? Give up? Or struggle and fight for your life to be better?
Extreme right see problems in society mainly associated with immigration and try to do something about it, in a not widely accepted manner, but they do not conform.
feminizts and sjw and their "leftists" see actual injustices towards certain groups in un-developed societies and historically, then try to apply that to developed societies. Not uncommon among them to sacrifice their own pleasure in food in exchange for less suffering of others.
Traditional left, for workers* rights, against rich interests, resist and try to change t system structure to something other than t negative aspects of capitalism.
*that is whoever does work as an employee for a salary.
[unfinished thought]
But you majority.
All you have done is agree with what has been presented and driven for. Lived for maximum comfort, eaten whatever is tastiest most pleasant.
You have just gone along for more economy.
What non-selfish self-sacrifices have you made?
What great challenge have you really taken on?
I can offer youz some proppa fightz.
You're taking t easy path, same as a child would take. I am talking about t path no child would take, not even every adult, a path that one has to be a really strong and determined adult for, that which traditionally is called "being a man" for.
https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2020-04-26/sju-nmr-aktivister-atalas-for-angrepp-pa-motdemonstranter
When reading a recount of what happened, I got t situation right away from a few lines.
T extreme left misbehaved, incredibly disrespectfully, following after with chanting, getting up into face, based on t premise that no physical violence was possible towards them. There was police presence. So no violence would be dared. This is akin to a little kid, hiding behind his mother’s legs, sticking out making grimaces, gestures and taunts.
T extreme right NMR who have very strong masculine values and principles, or even most normal people for that matter, can only take so much crap, before needing to defend one’s honour and dignity. How would they look in front of their peers? (Shit, I just recreated honour culture, that is a long discussion.) They proved them wrong, while at t same time proving their discipline and dedication, by on a signal turning from ignoring to “defending”, knowingly they will get into trouble with t law.
About a year later there was a trial, and t extreme left were so surprised why, while transitioning inside t court building, NMR were allowed to walk right behind them without any police inbetween. I didn’t get it at all. Until reading those lines, was so obvious right away! T police wanted to teach t kids a lesson to not behave disrespectfully like that to someone stronger and dangerous, to prepare them for an eventual future event where no police would be there to save t day, (possibly also to have a reversal of t original situation, and showing t consequence of “forcing” such a reaction leading to jailtime consequences).
If this was a calculated and intentionally planned provocation by t extreme left, then that is disgusting dishonourable dishonesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woman_with_the_Handbag
Changes t view of this picture for me, making it far from black and white, while Danuta Danielsson’s perspective is very understandable, not made less complicated by Seppo Seluska’s inexcusable crime, t act itself I now have mixed feelings about, it is daring of her for sure, so maybe in this case it in t end is courageous afterall.
But this is part of what being a man is, you have to be able to take and absorb punches, keeping it together, without justice going t other way.
They also see that something is going wrong economically, and that is their way of explaining it. An easy answer, a scapegoat. Sort of like superstitious, early religious, explanations of how t surrounding world works, come about within small primitive cultures. In t absence of good comprehensive scientific theories and facts.
It's a very simplified, easy to understand explanation, and it is easy to market, and it gives a payoff in terms of followers, not necessarily driven by fact/logic.
A certain single people is responsible for t economic bad, a certain single person is responsible for immigration. Easy answers and easy explanations are a very rare exception to t general rule of things being complex.
Example of behaviour spiraling and snowballing. It's just simple psychology, politicians say whatever their audience wants to hear to get popularity, audience in turn likes to hear and likes those who say what goes along and confirms beliefs - winwin. This feedback loop can spiral and snowball far away from reality. It can be intentionally initiated as a deliberate manipulation tool, control can be lost, or it can arise spontaneously/naturally. It can be on an online videosite, do videos with content to maximize viewers, viewers choose to view videos that are not uncomfortable to watch – meaning those agreeing.
When capitalists behave evil and selfish, they are seen as either greedy or angelic, when capitalists want to give back and support humanitarian values, they are evil manipulative conspirators.
This is me several years ago reading through George Soros’ Wikipedia page:
George Soros now has 8B, and has donated 12 to philanthropic (and less philanthropic) causes, that's 60%, he is for: reducing poverty; education; increasing transparency; in murrica he supports progressives and democrats (also financially); he is against brexit; he is critical of the leadership and direction of Isreal; for immigration (t only stand-out for me); is critical of the direction of Murrica, is supportive of a strengthened EU; (against Russia and its influence,) >>>so all in all pretty much the polar opposite to the model rich elite/murrican<<<........…...
Me reading now: His father is Jewish and had been a prisoner during WW1. George himself is a Jew having lived through Nazi occupied Hungary, so he is a person who knows what shittiness is having both been grown up learning about it and lived through it firsthand, knowing how evil humans can be. He is by education an economist and has a bachelors and masters degrees in philosophy, a thinker.
He is for “open societies” against “Communist” dictatorial regimes and for turning them democratic with funding. For funding science. Yes there is funding of US democrats and progressivism, yes there is funding of refugees, doubt it is in t way popularly talked about him though, and he is against Bush and Trump as presidents. I see a humanitarian who tries to help people, make t world a better place, knowing and thereby empathizing with t hardships of life, a non-selfish altruistic rich critical of many economical laissez-faire “Capitalist” practices. He sees and opposes t dangers of China and its regime. Helped Ukraine from Russia, opposes Russia. Supports develepment of Africa. Like me, donated to Wikimedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society
"Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception." -George Soros
Just read with an open mind free from prejudices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations
I would very much like to see some incriminating evidence of him being secretly evil.
T original Illuminati stood for knowledge and truth, and stood against deception, misinformation, untruth, injustice. Somebody who would want deception and injustice, would make sure to sabotage t original Illuminati, by for example discrediting them with what is being told and rumored about them, as is now. So by me trying to enlighten, then obviously I must be part of t second one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati
As “Capitalism” “tightens”, Team People having less.
As things start to deteriorate more and more, become more bad in an increasingly obvious and undeniable way, how do you make employees keep quiet and most importantly keep doing their work, while at t same time quietly going along with t actions, changes and decisions?
You instill a silence culture, a self-censorship culture, which is a very effective tool at suppressing and oppressing! Just look at historical and current such regimes.
Where everyone is very to deathly afraid of being secretly reported, by anyone, for anything. Anything spoken, any action taken, can be a step on a mine.
But how would you accomplish that in t free world with free speech, with free though, with free humour, with law and order and human rights?
This is where "promotion of psychological fragility"* comes in, together with t "church of feminizm & sjw".
Any slightest thing can be picked up on, hooked into, to be offensive, hurtful, hateful, "incorrect" behaviour.
If you are disliked, for having dissimilar opinions, disagreeing with t popularity, ruining positive atmosphere/mood - then t subjective impression of you being offensive, and strictness to which you are judged, strictness to which things are let slide or hooked onto, can change orders of magnitude.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggressions
Instead of talking about what can be, what constitutes as a, what a microaggression is - ask instead what can not be interpreted as a microaggression.
T following three are/seem each in themselves quite reasonable, third one assuming some normal bar for reasonableness exists, but taken together can be abused maliciously as a tyrannical superweapon:
Everyone is to, at all times, feel fully "comfortable".
One can always choose to report anonymously.
It is a 100% up to t victim, no one else, to decide if a crime has taken place, if ones boundaries have been overstepped.
Which means one can get secretly reported, get consequences from a secret onesided trial, never find out to whom nor what one has done, never get to reply, object nor defend oneself.
But also never being able, if actually guilty of something, to take responsibility for ones actions, to make right a wrong, constructively improve for t future.
Going completely against all law systems' principles and proceedings, like t ones we have in t free western world.
Any accusation – which only one side has been able to present, which hasn’t been directly met and replied to by t other side – is not valid, is not an accusation.
So not only is it “guilty until proven innocent”, but its also guilty of something secret undisclosed, a guilt you cannot object nor appeal, an unknown guilt you forcefully must accept.
In what regimes and when in history is this recognized from?
Any next thing spoken, to either t ones in t conversion or those around overhearing, any next action taken, who and how you gaze at, how you carry yourself in a room, anything can be deemed criminal under t highly ambiguous, very broad and very subjective term "uncomfortable".
And everyone is to always feel completely comfortable.
So to be in t safe, one overly self-censors speech, overly self-censors actions, what is left is to just do your job and try to be as quiet, polite and agreeable as possible.
Funnily ironic in a way, this is like womens revenge, in this manner letting men experience a highly oppressed situation. I understand how you feel.
Everybody is to be cheery, having fun, social, sociable, smiling, joking about silly little things, keeping a pleasant atmosphere up, and be afraid of ever breaking that!
Which means you can only more or less agree and go along with t group - never object, disagree, say against t group - that would spoil t mood making you an unfitting individual!
[link to c1 fun as a weapon] https://imgur.com/14GYcch
In this way, no one sensible, reasonable will want to vote towards this un-electable "left" - Team Private win!
These people from t "church of feminizm & sjw" will still get into t top positions, from where this oppression will originate and be enforced, keeping t working class in check - Team Private win!
You can follow t "path of least emotional load" and think "oh, he's just one of those", there is nothing wrong with t many it must be t scapegoat's fault.
OR
You can think "there was never any just and fair process determining guilt, no innocent until proven guilty", such a system cannot and should not exist and must be changed. I have to do something.
Which is t easier way? A lock-in.
No matter what arguments or how good they were, how passionately, intensely, angrily, rationally, logically I presented, were I able to change anything. I was completely powerless. Because this isn't grounded in rationale nor logic, but in irrational illogical hysterical emotion, it's a feminizt* decision.
*“Feminizt decision” are irrational illogical decisions taken with opinions and directions typically associated with t feminine AND in such a climate where, were one to have a dissenting opinion and/or oppose, then one gets accused of being anti-feminist, woman-hater, bad (white) male, hateful, phobic. This leads to, when agreeing you can be as manly, tough, cocky and confident as possible, but if thinking of disagreeing now you have a small dick small balls, balless, impotent, castrated. Or you get cast out.
I believe I understand very well how things went down at t video game developer Naughty Dog.
Everywhere in groups making decisions of varying kinds, like boards, there are church members emboldened by t whipped up frenzy and thereby inequal conversation - only allowed in one direction, but tabood/censored in t opposite.
T "church of feminizm & sjw" is, highly ironically, just another form of fascism, a tyrannical dictatorship with strong self-censorship being central, a one-sided arbitrary inequal justice system within which those in higher standing positions with more power are more equal, not a de:Rechtsstaat, but a de:Obrigkeitsstaat with no sv:rättssäkerhet. With no freedom of thought, no freedom of speech and no freedom of humour.
What is typical for oppressive authoritarian dictatorship regimes is that you are either wildly cheering for it or you're an enemy against it. Another similarity to t "church of feminizm & sjw".
(What would be absolutely hilarious yet terrifying, is if Neo-Nazis and t “church of feminizm & sjw” were secretly cooperating for t same goal. Two absolute polar opposites, maximum masculinity and maximum “femininity”, truly poetic.)
Say t "church of feminizm & sjw" does accomplish its goal utopia dystopian. Of policed speech and thought and humour, that is determined by who? Would that make you followers proud? Over what? You can only agree and follow along, you have no other freedom, you are just as restricted within your own system as those you see fit to restrict. A lock-in.
[link to best prisoner] https://imgur.com/ERv37HB
T extremely ironic, counterintuitive, hypocritical, paradoxical, is that t way in which I criticize t left and t "CofFzm&sjw", is partly and to a large degree ingredients in my own life, letting me form into what I am. Now that I look back at my life. Many of t people around me created a safe-space. I have not had to think about making a living financially, nor had any pressure for career/education, I felt that I could get materially pretty much whatever I wanted, so I could relax without much obligations, disappear into my computer, into entertainment, into physics, science, knowledge, disappear into my thoughts freely, undisturbed, unrushed, and think, philosophize, imagine.
Instead of maximizing my hedonism I chose to for over 10 years now to feel horribly and hopeless thinking about everything that is wrong in t current political and financial systems, taking in all of t suffering and crimes against humanity, choosing not Ostriching my head into t glittery fun carefree sand, only t latest few years seeing some light in t darkness tunnel, about what possibilities exist to fix things. Actually I didn't choose t easy way!!!
How is t "church of feminizm & sjw" apparent in society?
Frank de Boer, football, who explained sports salaries with facts, logic and truth, lynched on social media, having to publicly retract his statements and apologize.
CD Project Red social media lynched for making a joke about t "CofFzm&sjw" themselves assuming genders.
Hollywood making retardedly stupid films flaming on t polarization.
Jordan Peterson almost fired, if not for a huge following, for thinking/speaking freely and debating, backed by scientific research and logical arguments.
Canadia bill c-16, 2016, compelling speech, otherwise being a hate crime.
Why special "identifiable group" get special treatment, instead of people in general?
Not respecting subjective identity potentially hatecrime, anything expressed, potential for taking offense, becoming a legal matter. At worst case edge, bullying cannot and should not be policed through criminal law.
"Well so I would say that t very idea that calling someone a term that they didn't choose, causes them such irreparable harm, that legal remedy should be sought, rather than regarding it as a form of impoliteness, that legal remedy should be sought including potential violation of t hate speech codes, is an indication of just how deeply t culture of victimization has sunk into our society." -Jordan Peterson, 2017-05-17 Senate hearing on Bill C-16.
Listen to what Jordan Peterson says, he is not phobic nor hateful of any kind, he is by education and profession a clinical psychologist, which means he knows about human behaviour. If anything he is being objective, unbiased, professional, and I would say on t side of those who can be his patients. He says that this law, removes, t possibility to claim, that ones gender identity is born with, is something determined by nature, is something outside of one's control - instead, this law, dictates, that ones identity is constructed and determined by in-t-moment choice of will. Now I haven't lived through not feeling at home in my own body, feeling like having a mismatch, being not correctly represented physically, (well in a way yes in that I severely feel a prisoner of biological limitations primarily memory capacity/capability and nutrition locked between t restrictive walls of a tight confine but this is probably unrelated), therefore I don't know all t details, coarser or finer, and I haven't spent enough time to think myself to/into much of t details, but this sounds like it could mean a day-and-night difference. This is most likely not about helping trans people, but has completely different motivations. Just a hunch here, there are a significant amount of people in t trans and greater hb tq + community bullied into silence and submission against freely speaking out about/critically/against certain directions, how correct am I?
Think I get it. By completely arbitrarily, at any momentary whim of will, being able to decide to belong to this special group, one can get extra leverage against an employer. This also creates an incentive of convert to t “church of fzm&sjw”.
In t following video, timestamps ~3:00+ & ~57:30+
2017/05/17: Senate hearing on Bill C16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIAAkSNtqo
Jordan B Peterson https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos
How many have been fired for speaking their mind?
Like Jordan Peterson has concluded in psychological, neurological, biological, linguistical, sociological -terms, about freedom of speech being something fundamental, I can conclude in physics terms - it is spread of information, spread of causality. Exchange of information, interaction of information, evolution of information.
If certain expression is forbidden, then certain events can be forbidden to happen as a causal consequence. Information needs to be free, and freely exchanged.
How to distinguish a password, from a criticism of an enslavement system, is no trivial matter.
Germund Hesslow at LU, BMC almost fired for thinking/speaking and presenting arguments backed by scientific research, but going against t ideology of a second hand witness who is a friend of a student.
Alexander Bard lämnar Liberalerna efter kritikstorm
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/alexander-bard-lamnar-liberalerna-efter-kritikstorm
Aleksandar Katai fired from t football club LA Galaxy for what his his wife had uttered (granted, it is an utterance which almost no one can defend) even after he ...
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
Nikolaos Pizanias, VD på Seitanfoods International AB
https://www.seitanfoods.se/omoss.html
T argument of LUNA being "democratically elected" by t students.
T vast majority of students are disinterested in t dealings of student union/council representation, even less so in contributing actively, so t voting turnout is seriously like 2%, a few percent tops. T meetings are dominated in numbers by t already active or historically active, "t establishment", who also dominate in setting opinion. T candidates are chosen by, far more by, voiced opinions and numbers of "t establishment" than by members - so new candidates are elected or rejected from within, rather than "democratically elected" from t outside. An analogy of a "critical mass" is reached and opinion and culture is locked into a certain self-reinforcing direction.
T "church of feminizm & sjw" is split into two branches.
One is working among t working class left to create t frenzy, take valid causes and bend them into extremism, create a group following, create sympathy from t rest, while at t same time splitting t left by, replacing working-class issues with identity-politics issues, and by making it unelectable to rational reasonable level-headed people.
T other branch is working by trying to occupy top positions, like in LUNA, from where t self-censorship silencing culture can be implemented and enforced.
It is social engineering, manipulation, just like in t social/party game Warewolf/Mafia (and similar secret deduction) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game) .
You are so used to, in t well off rich developed free western world, to not have any hardship, to not work hard, to not take responsibility, to get everything for free and if not then to whine it to become so, so much that a big part of t left formed an ideology and religion based on this, called maybe identity politics, or maybe t "church of feminizm & sjw", but you have just been tricked to this by agent actors/pretenders, who are using this opening to attack to split/divide t left, tarnish its image and divert/derail its direction - defeating an opponent - and you let yourselves get successfully tricked.
Both sides have possibly contributed, given rise to this tool for oppression/control, both Team Private, but also t “CofFzm&sjw”. Not necessarily because they are evil per se, but because it can be done. Because it simply being a possible possibility, that can be done to keep increasing profit, maybe even must be done for that goal - because that is what is being asked for, requested, in demand by Team People. This is simply in t nature of t scorpion and t frog.
Whenever you wontonly get an extremely serious accusation thrown at you, for something ludicrously disproportionate like say disagreeing, being called phobic, racist, etc., respond back saying: you can't use an extremely serious accusation as an argument, to win an argument.
Simply that person is for a totalitarian injustice system where anyone disagreeing is guilty until proven innocent, that person is against free world, free speech, free though, free humour, freedom and democracy, fair trial.
T members of t "church of feminizm & sjw" are not for a free open just world for everyone, but each member is for a totalitarian dictatorship tyranny ruled by a tiny power elite, belonging to which, they ofcourse envision themselves. It's a typical power coup enabled simply by nothing but its possibility existing - in terms of broad sympathy for a perceived cause. Perceived wrongly.
You believe in an ideology wherein specifically you and ones like you have t advantages.
[link to for my group, divided] https://imgur.com/rVxAMjV
If (deliberately) misgendering someone is considered "an act of violence", which in itself is utterly hysterically ridiculous, not to mention disproportionate, then what is wantonly throwing out serious accusations of: uncomfortable, stalking, sexual harassment, phobic, racist, act of violence, terrorist, etc. Then you end up with, that t tiniest of transgressions against those abusing power, is labeled as t most serious of crimes. This is reminiscent of what/where/when?
Why is t accuser, supposed victim, who additionally chooses anonymity making t accusation, trial and verdict be secret without possibility of reply from t defendant, who further additionally chooses to accuse of t extremely vague and broad offense of "making feel uncomfortable", be t default side to take? And t accused, supposed perpetrator, is to be deemed to not fit in society, cast out, told to seek help from professionals? Why is it not t other way around? Why is it not t unreasonably sensitive person who is deemed not fit to be among other people and told to seek professional help?
You are going to be judged by their laws, their standards, their process, their justice. Where you may have no knowledge of your accusation, and in either case no reply, and no appeal.
But no need to worry, it is afterall not just justice, it is just social justice.
Justice requires bravery, there is no justice among cowards.
Among cowards, it takes courage to not be corrupt.
Identity politics is division, sjw is a way for popularity groups/cliques to get power, t "church of feminizm & sjw" is astroturfing, sjw is an ugly parasite that latches on to a movement and over time mind controls it towards its own direction, political correctness under sjw is part of their newspeak, and remember, remember, thought crime is intolerated.
sjw wanting to remove anything uncomfortable immediately, is similar to instant gratification, versus short term discomfort leading to long term reward.
I understand now that I saw t limit of my manliness, how those weaker felt, how it is to face something one isn't strong enough for head on first try without guidance, t value to be able to take a break somewhere significantly calmer. Why some would like to go to t extreme and make it their entire life. Even though “safe spaces” can fill a legitimate and important role, it cannot be for onesided echochamber discussions, have “safespaces” - but ban discussion in both/all directions equally!
When in patriarchy you get dominated but by argument and reason, while in matriarchy you aren't allowed to hurt someone's feelings by talking intensely and decisions are based on irrational emotion not on fact and logic.
Within one, opinions and decisions can be challenged and defended, can be dueled, with free speech and thought and humour, with arguments, with logic, with facts, with reason, with passionate anger when feeling strongly enough about something (with making a fuss), while within t other, as soon as someone feels uncomfortable, hurt feelings, offended, argument gets shut down.
What is better? Men half having power but using it to serve and deserve t women half, or women half having power plus having t men still looking to serve and deserve?
Can this, by thought-through and intentional societal design, be to counterbalance an asymmetrical imbalance? Because everybody knows what it means for a man when he becomes a pussy-whipped sucker. We've all either been there, seen it or caused/controlled it.
When you’ve heard a female tech CEO talk about “how bad white men, with boxing-gloves-attitude, are”, questioned and discussed t statement, but only briefly, not long enough to get any real answers, other than when letting merit determine positions in fair competition, “you end up with t same situation as today, with mostly white men in top positions, so something else has to be done”. Foul play is almost always reprehensible, fair competition is a must.
I’ve visited them, observed, talked to t feminists. A central thing for them as women is that they just don't like being dominated.
That is probably referring to being dominated in a direct manner.
Dominated indirectly however, by having authority higher enough (relatively), where you aren’t in question to begin with, that is admirable, because biologically programmed instincts.
Hence also constantly trying test/disprove this.
My theory is, and I bet, this is evolutionary and it actually makes perfect logical sense.
They are looking/testing for a potential father not taking t: easiest way, dumbest way, impatient way, selfish way - challenge, intelligence, time, generosity - central α-male traits (though not exhaustive).
Think as if you are constantly auditioning for a kindergarten position to be able to handle small children, you're never going to be talking to them as to your fellow manly man. Further, this needs to be natural/genuine, not an act to please a woman, hence she needs to be attracted to a higher value male who isn't out after her - this seems to explain hypergamy.
Since women are not consciously aware, of this, in t brain structure, from birth genetically programmed instinct/behaviour, going on, as with all of us and many more such programmings, it is incorporated into lifestyle and has manifested, been made, into a whole culture.
Then you get book titles as "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus" and "Mansplaining".
I've had t pleasure of knowing one such woman-whisperer magician manly man!
This is interesting from t perspective of discussing free will. It takes knowledge of one's instincts to have free will. In this context, but also in a much more fundamental way in physics which I will write about upcomingly.
In t typical case, a man can never convince a woman through rationality logic argument. You are either someone she, already to begin with, looks up to in t socio-economic hierarchy, therefore by default having authority. Or you're just annoying and unimportant, to be dismissed. Oh, and if you, as one of those untermenschen, do make a good point, against her beliefs, that cannot be easily avoided, then she really gets infuriated, defensive, disruptive. It is all genetically programmed, neural structures, animal instincts, to favor α-males. So in a way this is credibility built on prejudice and perception, "feeling about him", not fact (difference between "downhill" with confirmation bias, and "uphill" against CB). Now try to argue how bad patriarchy is, and how t evil white men created it, ironically seems more it originates from women, from evolution/biology. To clarify, argument here being that t societal component from men is an adaptation to said biological fact. That said, not excusing all aspects.
This is all in t context of t developed west. Places where women actually are oppressed is extremely serious, like Motherland, for t little boys in which I am deeply ashamed.
There are women who are serious and do a real proper job, take full responsibility, are and can be held fully accountable - those are t ones who deserve all of equality and praise (and, if anyone, maybe even some compensation for past oppression).
Then there are those who are formed by t typical femininity culture of getting all kinds of special treatment, making no effort, basically a spoiled child always used to getting its way, never held responsible for ones actions or decisions or statements, nor ever dealing with consequences - these ones are a huge contributing factor to t toxic anti-freeworld sjw culture, and need to be weeded out, and hopefully rehabilitated back into being human beings contributing to society.
(btw, t first part is basically what typical masculinity culture is.)
Many of these things are just a parody, it's probably just inside jokes to bored rich. How ridiculous and hilarious stuff can we manipulate these simpleton parrotmonkeys to repeatimitatefollow? Stop taking these things so seriously, they are but mere jokes to some.
Gender is a social construct - it is inverted, there are by biology/evolution t two genders with gender roles, and everything else is what is socially constructed.
More than two genders - sure, in a certain land, you can fantasize/imagination yourself being anything, go right ahead, even an attack helicopter.
It's like mineral water from these special springs.
T wall.
Big apple. Apple.
Getting BlackLivesMatter to be slavery denying (like Holocaust denial) by erasing t memory of slavery, going thereby towards enabling a repeat of history, meaning being pro-slavery.
(Multiculture mixing open-border immigration doesn’t lead to t future situation of South Park s08e07 Goobacks, compared to people predominantly keeping to their own kind racially/culturally – wouldn’t that preserve multiple cultures. In any case, controversial and divisive issue.)
Being imaginary trans is equally valid as being actually trans having gone through physiological changes. Being imaginary anything at whim of will at any moment is equally valid because nothing physiological exists being just “socially constructed” therefore doesn’t matter. Physiological LGBT being made irrelevant and/or phobic by imaginary-anything ones. Now that is funny.
J.K. Rowling around 2020-06. Now not only men are not allowed to be men, women also are not allowed to be women – they are instead “people who menstruate”.
If you're not born a typical healthy tiger, you are not fully a tiger, plastic surgery isn't really a tiger, nor any other animal.
Sociologically constructed, then sure, whatever you fantasize yourself as.
Scientifically, biologically, physiologically, nop. Sorry, but t vast universe between t stars isn't a very nice place for your feelings. That said, out of courtesy and respect I fully accept peoples personal life choices and preferences, just keep it truthful and honest in those situations wherein certain differences, that cannot be chosen by will, but are determined by birth, do matter.
T left, working class, is split even further, high educated salary workers who are employed to perform mental labour, do not see themselves being part. Many of them consider themselves being among t superior ruling rich whose position is absolutely secure. In so, they see it as in their interest that t system is kept exploitative, otherwise they couldn't have high privileged positions in it. This is also where you'll find t most bright and shining good people, and people who bring humanity forward through new knowledge, but very sadly also where t "church of feminizm & sjw" is among t most pervasive. And possibly also worse. Especially among t young students.
Dis is not de wey mah bruddahs...
[link to What’s your plan, really?] https://imgur.com/fK56A8W / https://imgur.com/QpYojLM
BLM, defund police, to privatize law enforcent? Need to hear t police side of things! Black side needs to be as against police transgressions, as transgressions against police.
Apart from repeating everything what has already been said, and I do believe that all intellects/consciousnesses matter.
Police is a low class job, with low salary, bad working conditions, very low career prospects, on top of that it is also thankless, AND you put your life at risk!
On one side, any moment in t field, any moment with t enemy can mean injury/death, to all this, on t other side, every action you do can be an accusation of transgression, while at t same time transgressions in t other direction, no one even gives a fuck about! You are taken for granted risking your life for everybody else in society having it so carefree fun and well. And for what? For these little weak pansy children who, do not know t world outside of t walled safe glittercoloured kindergarten, to then complain about your protective gear being too militarized to their liking? not being armed unnecessarily, defunding.
That said, certain more or less nonconstructive and/or outright shameful attitudes very likely do exist among some members, and some cannot cope with t stress, and that needs to be identified and corrected, otherwise that person has no place in that service.
And that's t thing, under such conditions it just becomes another job, you do it for t money, just a salary, make sure to survive and earn that living. There's no room for any ideology or principles of serving and protecting society, being a hero, being respected, appreciated, honesty, honour, upholding t law, just do whatever needs to be done with t enemy, to survive literally, and to get paid, to survive figuratively. Who cares about t enemy in such survival situation? Without those principles, you're just a mercenary soldier for hire.
THIS is what needs to change, there needs to be a revolution on both sides!
You in t police force have, in a way, all t power over us people, with great power must come great responsibility. Responsibility, accountability for, and defendability of, your actions - both in front of t people but in front of yourselves personally as well. Because - each one of you individually choosing to act or not act in a certain way, as well as in a group choosing to act or not act in a certain way - shapes society and its course, a society you and your close ones will have to live in as well!
Would you, for money or not, follow orders to silence free speech? Silence free thought? Take away freedoms? Enforce slavery?
Or could you say NO and refuse?
This is what it takes to be t strong, who defend t weak, stand up for t right thing, and not corrupt from fear/cowardice, mental weakness, selfishness.
Can we have police officer killings be highlighted in media and in peoples attention, just as much as t police brutality caused deaths?
Why not as well protest against that which t police has to handle, protest against t organized crime, disorganized crime, drug crime, criminal shootings and other violence. Better yet, try actually doing something about it, try actually dealing with it yourself, not just protest about it. Or how about outright joining t police force instead of just demanding? Surely you can do a better job with your own life on t line! Sit's just like how Hollywood gangstas ain't shit compared to real muthaphuckkin G's!
Think about that you live in t free developed western world, with free thought, free speech and free humour. After you've done this, compare your protests to those protests where such freedoms are inexistent or in t process of being taken away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Knd_5rVfY China is Using George Floyd Protests for Propaganda. ~7:20 freedom in t free world.
(by China Uncensored https://www.youtube.com/user/NTDChinaUncensored/videos )
Police get treated badly especially by those they protect from. These are mistakes.
Police make human mistakes themselves and treat badly.
Now police are seen badly, mistrusted and treated badly also by those they protect. Doesn't inspire values against mistakes.
Those treated badly by police probably choose a worse life path. This concentrates and builds in societies.
Cycle repeats. Wheel keeps turning.
T more us versus them, t more conflict and infighting, t more division, t more everyone loses and gets conquered! [link to for my group, divided] https://imgur.com/rVxAMjV
Identity politics is division.
sjw is repeating t cultural revolution in so many ways.
You want to revise history to your liking, erase whatever is uncomfortable going against your ideology. What other regimes in history have deemed fitting destruction of history? Including destruction of culture? Erasing what is deemed unfit by ideology?
History needs to be objectively preserved, so that it is neither forgotten nor distorted, so that it is reminded of, remembered and learned from, so that it isn't repeated. This is t holy rule of t science of history!
And this is central for a non-closed open free society, with freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of humour!
If I were for and wanted to reinstate/increase slavery, repeat history, it would be in my interest to erase everything reminding of slavery, to avoid troublesome uncomfortable memories and pesky comparisons.
I understand you want to follow your core values, which are well intended, but you cannot take any path towards your goals, on t way using any means possible. You may end up straying from a good path getting lost somewhere in an ugly place.
How about we ask t police themselves: law enforcement, what in your opinion is needed for you to fulfill your service and protection on t side of t people, to be and be seen Admirableplayer?
Currently, history is set up to repeat itself in form of t Tiananmen Square massacre.
Unlike there, both then and now, you have t freedom to peacefully protest, but right now order must be restored, and now both sides have firearms. What if there starts a new civil war?
May not be white privilege, may instead be standard normality in society, and some be underprivileged, but seen from that point of view, that normality can relatively appear as a privilege. (But t "CofFzm&sjw" must bend everything, to be t fault of and to vilify t scapegoat bad men, especially bad white men. "ALL men generalize!" meme)
My take on t root causes, these are at least key things each person has direct control over:
Education*, are you studying, constantly learning (there's Wikipedia), getting good school results?
Self-destructive, are you staying away from any/all substances and associated criminality?
Self-constructive, are you looking after health, exercise, running, eating varied** whole plant food, not processed+refined candyfood?
Family, are you helping out, contributing to t household?
Neighborhood, are you helping out, contributing, constructing not destructing, adding not detracting, giving not taking, to t ones around you in your area?
Why or why not? Could you if you wanted to? Do you have that choice available to you?
Constantly being productive. Resisting hedonism. All about forgoing short term reward, intentionally being uncomfortable, in favor of long term reward.
If you protested against THIS as vehemently, then within less than 1 generation, maybe 5-10 years, there would be little left to protest about.
If still thinking systematically oppressed, instead of victimizing in self-pity, then take it as a challenge to beat them at their own game! Stick it to them by making something of yourself! Winning t competition playing fair by t same rules! If not for you, then for Africa!
One thing I’d say needs a change, is to make past criminal mistakes redeemable, in some smart, fair and clever way - not be a permanent exclusion from society!
*What are you without knowledge? Would Neil deGrasse Tyson, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, Nana Akufo-Addo be successful in their endeavours without having knowledge?
Without knowledge, any human is simply nothing more than just an animal, eating, sleeping, procreating, living in t moment doing whatever is momentarily rewarding/fun, following instincts - not planning/looking into future based on observing back into past history and current present.
**Dr. Michael Greger's Daily Dozen is a good template/inspiration. Also, Dr. Milton Mills.
Repeating:
Mah black bruddahs (and sistahs), I want to see an uncorrupted democratic prosperous African Union! Make Africa Great! Listen to Nana Akufo-Addo of Ghana. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E22oUbJGH3I
One of t biggest things you can do in t world, is to Make Africa Great! It is one of t biggest humanitarian acts possible, it is one of t biggest ways of striking back at t racism, it is one of t most needed things in t world to save t birthplace of humanity from even more slavery coming!
Not by Murricans for t profit of Murrica, not by Europeans for t profit of Europe, not by Chinese for t profit of China, but by humanitarian humans from t world for t prosperity of Africa!
T premise of that word, on t Fysicum Pub board, to promise secrecy about t accused person, is to not have rumors get out and spread to t detriment of that persons life, this premise had per definition nullified itself to begin with, since t board this originated from, already had spread rumors to other boards, including ours.
From t beginning. And this is complete hearsay, from several sources.
Some guy at LTH has been showing attention to 1 or more girls somewhat too enthusiastically. He had been wating outside exam with flowers, trying to talk up, leaving letter in mailbox, texting, don’t know t exact details, have heard neither side firsthand. Sounds between quite innocent to quite disrespecting.
What if his Grandmother and Grandfather told him as advice to be persistent and not give up that easily, because otherwise they themselves wouldn’t have become together and him not existing.
Anyway, he apparently was told to stop, by t LTH student union after ~2 months, but continued. Then he was tried and sentenced by t LTH student union board, to “being a stalker / guilty of stalking”, and banned from all activities arranged by t LTH student union, who further contacted many other student organization boards and warned about him, and “warned about having to deal with him, because he starts processes”, apparently he had filed a report on t matter with t actual legal authorities.
This is what we were to decide upon at one of our board meetings, if he is to be allowed at our pub evenings, since our guests may be uncomfortable, which is kind of a fair argument.
This was before I had personally had experience in dealing with t “church of feminizm & sjw”.
During our board meeting, people generally didn’t have much opinion, I asked how we could be sure of his guilt and if he had gotten a fair trial and what t evidence was. Was reassured by t president that t LTH-SU had done their job well and correctly. A little more discussing and I said that, if we are to take a decision upon t matter for us here, we should hold a fair trial and look at t evidence ourselves, to which t president said that nope, I have full confidence in that LTH-SU did a good job and made t correct decision. He gave some vague examples, which were at t time hard to refute, yeah t guy didn’t exactly behave t very smartest, plus it sounded like t LTH-SU board seemed thorough and trustworthy, so I let it be.
With personal experience, I wouldn’t accept an accusation from one side without hearing it firsthand, together with then also hearing t second side’s reply firsthand. Further, based on my own experiences, I doubt highly that t process held any good standard, it was probably on t level of a (junior) high-school popular clique group deciding if they like somebody or not, based on being highly biased towards one party and against t other party.
Imagine having one single instance of a process, of potentially low quality, from somebody not a proper legal state court, deeming you something as extremely serious as a stalker, then spreading this to other groups who take it at face value without holding own processes. Using that specific word*, without a proper trial, it is basically on t level of kids spreading rumours, but with this being actual adults that sounds to me like it should be tried in a proper court for defamation/slander/libel!
This guy has all t rights in t free world to not accept his verdict, question and appeal it, and have it tried for legality.
But this is how t “church of feminizm & sjw” handle things, to them, he obviously is guilty, since it is so obviously apparent, and everything is thereafter justified, and he is so bad, for saying against his judges, for not accepting and questioning his verdict and guilt.
*Use any other words, like behaving highly inappropriately, disrespectfully, invasively, stupidly etc. I understand t desire to use strong language, but it must be precisely reserved for t exact right circumstances, otherwise you are hurting and doing a disservice to t actual victims, by them being taken less seriously if t language describing their situations is used too commonly, losing meaning. Extremely more seriously it is regarding false accusations, which are not only damaging to t innocent accused ofcourse, but also highly damaging to real victims, whose credibility often is purely their word against another’s word, and that credibility must be kept high.
A proven false accuser - is just as serious as a true perpetrator going unpunished!
Why freedom of humour? - Because humour is t ultimate test of freedom.
I will know I've accomplished something t day I'm brutally mocked by oldskool South Park (before they were sjw censored, castrated, balls chopped off, around s19).
Reading t Wikipedia Page about Milo Yiannopoulos, except t superiority and war part, and t rhetoric against journalists, which is a shame, he has said nothing controversial in my eyes, he speaks his mind, also judging from his own words, tells t truth and one who dares to do so, a rebel having balls, having lived through hardships. Listening to his conversation with Jordan Peterson, I see a very insightful and incredibly intelligent mind.
People that are LGBT that I respect and regard are Stephen Fry, Blaire White, Milo Yiannopoulos, ContraPoints, Arielle Scarcella
T only privilege there is, is when not caring about privileges, working maximum, realizing your potential into t best version you can be, not victimizing, overcoming obstacles.
T struggle for survival never disappeared anywhere, it's still there, just much more specialized, more distributed, with immediate dangers of dying removed, and some makeup to mask it and staging to make it less visible and offer some distraction.
Life is a hard hell struggle for survival, may not today be apparent, especially if you're in a position where others do t hard work for you. But this can be motivated from a physics standpoint, because it is about entropy, it is about making an effort against, by laws of mathematics, of combinatorics, of thermodynamics, increasing entropy. And it's not good enough to just counter it ±0, we want to also develop, improve, so it has to be overcountered, t more t better (probably within certain reasonable limits).
Link to all of my “prison poetry”, philosophizing in extremest of darkness 2019, trying to explain t world and find a logical way to improve upon it. From between 2019-Nov and 2020-Feb.
(May require more or less thinking to understand, some may not be possible to get unless having lived through something similar.) https://imgur.com/a/qzejirS
a2 Another version/angle of t reason world isn’t good https://imgur.com/XTM6vcm
[link to b1 power over you] https://imgur.com/KMEPunc / https://imgur.com/lsbtuYo
[link to d must resist] https://imgur.com/54xgMr4
cognitive dissonance https://imgur.com/Wh0PkEf
benefit my group https://imgur.com/rVxAMjV
censoring/silencing https://imgur.com/f34oEeR
To t “left box”
Open borders isn't a sustainable solution and it's a huge hypocrisy - you're helping a tiny miniscule minority, a sort of elite of foreigners, in order to feel good about yourselves - while their place of origin remains unchanged for t remaining ones.
Never ever against free speech, free thought, truth, science (and free humour).
Men and masculinity isn't necessarily something bad, a strong confident secure "generous" man, that has t balls to be brave enough to not be evil, that is something to treasure. Unfortunately most men are weak and insecure, mostly because they simply haven't been taught otherwise, give these men power and you get all t #metoo stories I've followed, thinking that those men are t real victims. Then there's t second criterion, to not bend to evil, that one separates t little boys from real men. You have no idea t environment a real man has to endure - masculinity IS discomfort. Study and learn from masculinity instead of being prejudiced!
People should be treated equally with equality of opportunity, this is what should be inspired, and all that is needed. Forget all your affirmative actions, it's an unfair shortcut, make t effort instead or stand for your choices.
Without t lifegivers, none of us would exist. Pregnancy is t one thing that needs to be appreciated and compensated for – from both sides (meaning woman’s/mother’s career effort still a factor, pregnancy isn’t).
This whole feminizm & sjw in t richest western countries is an easy, cost and risk free movement to get behind – procrastinating difficult issues, that may put you in danger, require an actual sacrifice.
Life isn't fun and easy, it's a hard as hell battle for survival, if you don't see or feel this, then you're a sheltered child living in a bubble - where someone else had/has to be doing t hard work.
Now work on real world problems, work on making t whole world a less shitty place, less greed and selfishness, less war, less suffering and slavery (of all consciousnesses), make a difference for t ones your good life is built upon!
To t “right box”:
You don’t have to say no immigration AND think badly of immigrants/foreigners – it is humans like any other, just happen to have come out of a vagina in a much worse environment.
They are not fleeing their homes and coming here in masses with some common conspiracy to invade and take over – they are fleeing home cities bombed to ruins, with no working societal structure including food, with t alternative of refugee tent-camp or try to get to t good part of t world to have a good life – like any other person – what would you do?
All of t non-binary alternatives (non-heteronormative) are people like any other, trying to live a life like any other. They don’t have ill intentions and aren’t hurting anyone – on t contrary most of it is for love. It’s just what complex human behaviour does, given room to expand without t harsh limiting conditions of survival of t stone age or t jungle.
What do I care what partner my neighbor chooses if it doesn’t affect me?
What do you care how your neighbor dresses?
What if a bunch of people had opinions on your dresscode or way of life?
T more you push on them, t more they become isolated defensive radicalized, hate begets hate, try to accept or at least tolerate. Hate, bullying, that's easy, opening up to something new and different, that can be hard, therefore takes strength of will.
Be instead secure in yourself and be an admirable example of what you represent!
Traditional femininity isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
Traditional masculinity is more worrisome, because it carries with it t strength of standing up for and doing difficult things, which is an enormous rarity in todays well-off conformist societies! But, maybe optimistically, then we’ll be t rarity!
Comments
Post a Comment