Skating on thin ice
Skating on thin ice
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Photos
    • Me
    • Family and friends
  • Definitions
  • Wisdom
  • Quotes
  • Nonsense
  • Art
    • Art with meaning
    • Portraits
    • Boats
    • Nudes
    • Buildings
  • Marc
  • Photography
  • Essays
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Photos
    • Me
    • Family and friends
  • Definitions
  • Wisdom
  • Quotes
  • Nonsense
  • Art
    • Art with meaning
    • Portraits
    • Boats
    • Nudes
    • Buildings
  • Marc
  • Photography
  • Essays

Holes in my socks – welcome to hell

10/7/2017

0 Comments

 
I am a little confused about the current liberal/leftist zeitgeist. Is it really the pacifist, social egalitarian ideology it is made out to be, or is it really a cabalistic collusion promoting some occult doctrine?
 
Ever since Pierre Leroux and Marie Reybaud pinned the term “socialism” to an embryonic sort of egalitarian marketing campaign in 1827, men and women the world over have claimed it to be the only morally acceptable political philosophy. The French bunched these social zealots together and made them sit on the left side of the États généraux, a primitive gathering of thieves and other rogues. It was since the French revolution that those from the left, i.e. Socialists, have been struggling for their cherished cause.
 
Propaganda by deed
 
The struggle has always been a violent one; in 1881 Narodnaya Volya, a left-wing group, killed tsar Alexander II and developed the concept of propaganda by deed.  
The Nazi Brownshirts and the Italian fascist Squadristi (of the 1920s and early 1930s) were a bunch of street hoodlums who liked nothing better than to pass on their message (mainly to the ‘bourgeoisie’) with fist and gun. Using the Brownshirts and Squadristi model of tolerance and humanity, the left continued to spread the gospel of liberalism and social justice through propaganda by deed.
 
In 1970, two left-wing cherubs, the Bohemian Andreas Baader and the left-wing journalist Ulrike Meinhof decided that what the left was missing was an army to further the cause and enforce propaganda by deed. Their enforcement involved 296 bomb attacks, arson and other attacks between 1973 and 1995. Their Red Army Faction was still active as late as 2015 when Ernst-Volker Staub, Daniela Klette, and Burkhard Garweg confused an armoured security van for an ATM.
 
The Italian Red Brigades, the French Action Directe (AD), and the Belgian Communist Combatant Cells (CCC) also enforce their leftist views through propaganda by deed.
 
Ernesto the friend
 
Che (friend) Guevara, that nice doctor from Argentina whose revolutionary saccharine stare adorns many a leftist’s tee shirt also firmly believed in furthering the leftist message through physical intimidation and death. I wonder why the mere mention of his name today makes young leftists drool with admiration.  
The good doctor was perhaps more in love with violence than Revolution; or was Revolution the best way to guarantee him violence and action? Who knows, but Che's motto was: "If in doubt, kill him." And, Che killed so many people in his revolutionary career that Humberto Fontova said that he was "a combination of Beria (the Stalinist sadist) and Himmler".
 
Globalism terrorists
 
The left-wing has never abandoned propaganda by deed. The “Social Movement” is now so widespread that the western world is roughly divided between left and right protagonists. And it is the left that is more inclined to violence, still.
The left is actively adopting more and more “causes” that it is prepared to fight, and kill for. They have, for example, appropriated the entire ecological argument and regularly defend it with violent protest. Recently they have adopted “Globalism” (whatever that is) and they are burning, looting and killing to eradicate the earth of this affliction.
 
The current generation of enforcers have not abandoned propaganda by deed. The new crop of leftist activists are no less dangerous than their illustrious predecessors. Thomas Eberhardt-Koester and Andreas Blechschmidt have not yet planted any bombs but their followers are clamouring for the death and destruction of all of those who do not agree with them.
 
A wolf in sheep’s clothing
 
Everyone knows that the German National Socialists (Nazis) glorified irrationalism and had a profound political commitment to violence. And we are now witnessing a replication of these two positions by International Socialists.
They grab the moral high-ground and perpetrate their so-called principles through a combination of indoctrination and violent action. Although they do not wear brown shirts, the vast majority of journalists and main stream media are faithful to the cause. These same devotees fan the flames of violence at every opportunity through cleaver subliminal messages.
 
The leftist “storm troopers” ATTAC and Welcome to Hell now provide sensation and entertainment. And the press refuses to make the connection between the ideology and the violence perpetrated in its name.
 
Believing that the social viewpoint is the most humane and moral way to live is a dangerous mistake. The growing violence and genocidal leftism is set to eclipse even the Islamic madness.
 
I have been wandering in the desert of objective reality for so long that I have holes in my socks and I still have the feeling that we have been in hell since the birth of socialism in 1827.


Picture
0 Comments

They are all rotten to the core

6/2/2017

0 Comments

 
Politicians are dishonest, deceitful and underhanded. The different “scandals” that are bubbling to the surface like air logged turds in all of the so-called democracies attest to this fact. Oh, some will cry, not everyone is dishonest; there are some rotten apples but they are in the minority. Hahahahaha.
When they are not outright dishonest and corrupt, they use the system to their advantage – and therefor to our disadvantage. And in my book, that is downright dishonest.
 
Politiclowns have fine-tuned the system so that they can derive maximum benefit from a system that they not only control, but one that they create by making those very laws and rules from which they benefit.  Then they defend themselves by holding the “democracy” banner on high. This charade no longer fools anyone - not even the lowest educated or the most politically naive. Except the politiclowns themselves – they arrogantly believe that they are above the law, or at least above the common (voting) man.
 
And politiclowns the world over cannot for the life of them fathom why we no longer believe in them. Just shows how far removed they have placed themselves from those that they have sworn to serve. The ivory tower has turned into the tower of Babel. The politiclowns, through the media (main-stream as well as social and alternate) still hammer away in self-righteous dignity about how good, how honest, and how necessary they are to making our lives a better and safer place. Hahahahaha.
The media has also not realised that the public at large mistrust them as much, or perhaps more, than the politiclowns.
 
So here you have a bunch of racketeers (and in many cases, outright criminals) feeding total bullshit to the public through the media sewer. They do so thinking that they are fooling Joe and Jane Voter, and become indignant when we don’t swallow their bullshit.
 
The problem is that they have rigged the game in their favour. There are no checks and balances built into the system. And if there once were, they have slowly and unobtrusively been removed from the system. Politiclowns, contrary to what they tell you, are answerable to nobody. Yes, you read that right – NOBODY.
 
Ethics, to a politiclown means “do whatever you want but don’t get caught”. And as long as you don’t embarrass the head honcho too much you will suffer no consequences. Daddy will get the highly-paid lawyers and consultants to draft a “press release” or organise a “press conference” in order to explain away the mal. Talk about preaching to the choir.
No politiclown that has pushed the boundaries of legality or has gotten caught in some sort of “affair” will voluntarily admit it before it appears in the media. Proof, if such is necessary, that they are fundamentally dishonest.
 
So how do we change this, you may ask? You force them to change the system so that they become responsible for their actions and that they become answerable to the public. And I don’t mean that they use the age old political snake oil remedy of apologising and promising to change their ways. No fucking way.
Politiclowns must be made to present a plan or program of what they intend to achieve during the year – and then present tangible proof that they have actually achieved what they have said they would achieve. And if they don’t perform, they should be disqualified from their function. There should be no place for mediocracy in government.


Politiclowns should be forced to adhere to an ethics charter. Any deviation from that charter must mean immediate disqualification.
 
To distance politiclowns for temptation, all forms of lobbying should be illegal. Why? Because lobbying is influence peddling at the highest level. It is the very basis of political dishonesty. Why? Because it is only the rich and influential that can afford to pay for the services of a lobbyist. You the common voting man/woman can only drop your frillys and take it up the brown exit. The pharmaceutical and agro industries are a prime example of just how influential lobbyists are and how the politiclowns are so readily willing to fleece us, and poison us, because big business said so. And don’t get me started on the banking system!
 
So, you have two options; sit back and accept that politico dishonesty is normal, or start to use you power to change the things that will bring the power back to you. That is the very definition of democracy – the rule of the people by the people.
 
And not by a thieving, lying autocracy.
 
Picture
0 Comments

Populism a euphemism?

20/1/2017

0 Comments

 
How interesting to see the madia, under direction from their politiclown masters, trying to make us believe that we are bad citizens. But then I tend to lose sight of the fact that madia is by definition, the vehicle of propaganda d’excellence. And since the “compassionate liberalists” (also known as “politico-sentimentalists, “bleeding hearts” or “the enlightened”) currently hold the reigns of mainstream madia we are mostly subjected to their views on everything. Since they are fervent believers in their moral superiority, they believe that anyone having a differing belief is wrong and should be converted through indoctrination.
 
I believe (at my own risk and peril) that the problem is that we are hard-wired to link emotions to moral judgement. This is really scary because if values are emotionally grounded, then all of our moral conflicts cannot ever be resolved. Cross cultural research has shown that just about every value that one group cherishes is rejected by another group.
Good-bye world peace.
 
So, you rightly ask, what has that got to do with populism?
 
I am a dyed in the wool cynic (my only redeeming quality) so when politiclowns use the term as an insult toward those who think differently, I immediately get suspicious. Suspicion begets curiosity, so I started to try to understand this phenomenon.
 
According to the internet God, Wikipedia, “Populism is a political style of action that mobilizes a large alienated element of population against a government seen as controlled by an out-of-touch closed elite that acts on behalf of its own interests.”
 
Wow!
 
Since most people, politiclowns and their elite cronies excepted, feel alienated from the political power fest, they can reasonably be labeled as populists. Feeling alienated is an emotion. It is therefore linked to our moral judgement.
Interestingly Karl Marx thought that estrangement of people from aspects of their Gattungswesen ("species-essence or moral values") is a consequence of living in a society of stratified social classes. “The alienation from the self is a consequence of being a mechanistic part of a social class, the condition of which estranges a person from their humanity.”.
Democracy, especially economic democracy, has created this stratified social structure where a small elite rule over the masses. This has awakened our suppressed political emotions.
 
Can you see the light?
 
Deftly leapfrogging your outrage and (dignified) offense, I will get back to the point I was trying to make;
Populism is a euphemism.
Everyone is dissatisfied with the current political (and social) zeitgeist. The politiclowns, being mortally afraid of this situation, have ordered the madia to go forth and indoctrinate the masses with the message that populism is wrong, and that anyone supporting it is bad. That is, you and me! The politiclown elite think that we are all bad and they are good. And we, the popul(list)lation think that they are inept idiots. See the euphemism yet?
 
Our moral judgement is firmly anchored in our emotions, and our emotions tell us that the system is wrong. We are therefore in conflict with the system, but this is no conflict of morals, the game is rigged; it is plain hegemony. So, before you turn sentimental and misty eyed in front of your preferred politiclown, remember that they don’t give a shit about you. Remaining in governance is the holy grail of every politiclown.
 
And if you think that voting for a “populist” politiclown will change anything, you are either confused or delusional; they are just another version of the same comic strip.


Picture
0 Comments

Enviro-masochism

13/1/2017

0 Comments

 
Industry is working hard to provide you with “things”, to keep you fed, healthy, entertained and mobile. They only do it because you want it, and not because they love making things. Stop buying and they cease to exist. How much simpler could it be?
 
Industries across all sectors and geographic regions, except maybe North Korea, only exist because you, the consumer, buys the things they produce. And because industry knows that you are feeble-minded they use “marketing” to con you that their things are absolutely necessary to your survival, and you respond like a Pavlovian dog responds to a bell.
 
In order to produce the ever more complex things that you find irresistible and essential for life, industry must dig up things, burn things and transform things. Doing this is generally very messy and causes great pain to mother earth. How much simpler could it be?
 
Because you buy things, industry makes money; the most powerful psychoactive device ever invented. Money is also highly addictive; therefore, industry’s greed knows no limits, and you the follower of fashion, continually feed their addiction.
You, the consumer, know very well that industry is raping the planet to provide you with your indulgencies; that industry is raping your wallet to provide you with your little extravagances.
 
In order to keep up with population growth, industry must extort nature to provide more, mostly finite, elements so that industry can produce ever more things.
How much simpler could it be?
 
Money is not only addictive, it also highly contagious. The mere thought of it fuels a desperate desire to accumulate more and more, so that it can be spent on buying things.
Humankind defines itself through possession of things; the more you own, the greater, smarter, stronger you perceive yourself to be. So, you continue on your quest to collect more things and more money, without regard to the consequences of your desire.
 
As long as you feed the beast it will grow until it devours your planet, and you cease to exist.
How much simpler could it be?
 
Yesterday, I accidently watched a program on National Geographic about an enviro-masochist who travels the world (in carbon guzzling contraptions that fly through the air) with his television crew to document the ravages industry is causing to the planet. A noble, if futile, endeavour. Everyone is painfully aware that we are destroying our planet. We don’t need another television documentary to tell us what we already know. And the great paradox is that if you are able to watch his film, you are contributing to the problem.
 
What we need is a (humane) way to kill the techno-narcissistic zombies devouring things and chasing the illusion of wealth. What we need is a (humane) way to stop unbridled reproduction of human beings. What we need is to stop thinking that we are smarter than nature, and get back to living simply in harmony with her. What we need is to rid ourselves of our addiction to things, and to define ourselves by the good we do to the earth and its inhabitants.
 
How much simpler could it be?

Picture
0 Comments

Obesitas Economicas

23/12/2016

0 Comments

 
The modern economistificator steadfastly believes that the remedy for any problem is growth. Everything must grow, markets, money supply, debts and of course, populations. These geniuses assert that growth is the motor of prosperity. And through complex smoke and mirror acts they entice the ignoramus credulosus into their utopia. Laws are made to promote growth. Growth becomes the only statistic that unites left and right. Growth is the drug that appeases the political mind; the opium of the omnipotent.
 
One cannot argue with “experts” because they hold the upper hand, they know everything, and you know nothing – that is why they are “experts”. Another problem with arguing against “experts” is that you have the burden of proving them wrong. So, being a fearless sceptic, I have decided to take up the challenge; to disperse the opium clouds and to reveal the truth.
 
Allow me a small comparison before I bring in the big guns. If you compare your life to that of your father's, you will notice that in the grand scheme of things conditions are near identical; you work the same hours, maybe more. You have the same holidays. You have a similar standard of material comfort (a washing machine, a car, heating, a beer when you want one). Your father retired at 60, while you will have to work to 67. A “doubling” in the size of the economy has not given you (and the vast majority of people like you) any major advantages in terms of free time or choice of what to do with your life.
 
So, the fundamental question is why do we need a growing economy when such major changes have little effect on real people’s lives? Even in poor countries, growth has failed spectacularly to alleviate poverty.
 
The experts will have you believe that economic growth is absolutely necessary to keep the wheels of modern life turning (in the right direction). But I think it is just plain econo-politico bullshittery. We don’t need economic growth. Economic growth will not solve the fundamental problems of human behaviour.
Growth will not make you richer, growth will not alter the fact that some will always be much poorer than others, growth will not reduce the incentives to cheat and steal and growth does not make people more charitable and good natured.
Growth is the primary cause of our environmental woes. Further economic growth will undoubtedly exacerbate these issues and reduce living standards.
 
There can be only two reasons why economic growth is necessary; people want to own more ‘stuff’ so they drink the Cool Aid and live in stress while waiting for financial nirvana, or because elections are won or lost on the state of the economy, and no politiclown wants to lose an election.
So, economistificators dispel growth theories from their assholes so that Politiclowns can win elections and keep the economistificators in a job.
 
While these shenanigans have been going on, nobody has noticed the adverse effects of perpetual economic growth – not even the “experts”.
When I inadvertently removed my rose-tinted glasses, I could not help noticing that the world is now in an irreversible state of Obesitas Economicas.
 
Obesitas Economicas (don’t bother to Google it, I made it up for the occasion) is an economic condition in which excess economy (money, things etc.) has accumulated to the extent that it has a negative effect on our, and our planet’s wellbeing. It increases the likelihood of various states of disorders, particularly uncontrollable debt, unemployment, stress related problems, poverty and political constipation. The earth suffers more from growth than humans, probably because the earth does not want to own things, or to go on exotic holidays.
 
Obesitas Economicas may preventable through a combination of social change and personal choices.
We need to stop pandering to the Economistificators and their lackeys, the Politiclowns. We need to stop believing political promises of a better future, the marketing genie and Playboy magazine. We need to realize that the possession of ‘stuff’ does not define us as humans.
 
Things go on, until they can’t
.

Picture
0 Comments

Colonisation, the African renaissance.

20/11/2016

0 Comments

 
If you believe the current zeitgeist, then colonisation is what destroyed cultures, plundered wealth and exterminated or enslaved entire continents. I don’t. I believe that colonisation was good for the countries and people touched by it. Running around waving the banner of shame at all whites just does not cut it for me. Blaming the colonialist for all the mal of the continent is just plain idiocy.
 
Consider this; if say, Zimbabwe, was not colonised by Britain, then it is reasonable to think that the Shona would still be living in their traditional manner; that is to say in round mud huts with thatched roofs. Brick and mortar buildings were introduced by the white devil.
They would eat millet, sorghum and cassava and hunt antelope. The colonialist brought them organised agriculture, maize, wheat and beans.
Cooking arrangements consisted of an open wooden log fire. Stoves, pots, pans, cutlery and fine porcelain came in the trunks of the colonialist.
The clothing of the day was made from hides. Textiles and weaving techniques was brought to them courtesy of the whites.  
Sanitary arrangements consisted of squatting behind a bush. Toilets and toilet paper was also courtesy of the colonialist.
Governance was by a hereditary chief who would be responsible for the distribution of land, for appeasing the territorial spirit guardians, and for settling disputes. The colonialists brought order, bureaucracy, police and military techniques.
Care of the sick was the domain of the witchdoctor. Whites brought surgery and effective medicines.
The Shona could not read or write, they had no schools. The colonialist brought them this precious gift.
Their economy was based on trading and barter of food and hides. The whites introduced money.
The abundant Gold, Nickel, Coal, Asbestos, Copper, Iron and Silver under their feet would be totally useless to them and their lifestyle. They had not the slightest idea how to extract and process these minerals and turn them into “wealth”. That would need the knowhow and experience of the colonialist.
 
So, the colonialist brought with him civilisation. The natives quickly adopted all of these life changing wares and ways, with passion and zeal. They adopted our manner of dress; no colonialist ever forced a black maiden to cover her breasts. They adopted our lifestyle, toilets and schools. Then they forced us to “liberate” them; to give them their independence from our evil ways.
Once we were gone, they accused us of stealing their resources but they never considered that those minerals had been useless to them and their lifestyle since their ancestors started walking on their hind legs. Never did they consider giving their useless rocks as payment for entering the civilised world.
 
We did not destroy their culture, we improved it. We did not exterminate them; they were doing that quite well on their own. The colonialists did not invent tribal wars and ethnic genocide; they were there long before any white man set foot on the continent.
We were not the first to take them into slavery; the Egyptians and Arabs had been doing it for centuries before the colonial era.
 
Modern Africa has suffered more under its own leadership than it ever did under colonialism.
 
I say this; stop complaining about the colonialists.
If you don’t like what we brought you, go back to your tribal ways. Throw away the trillions you have stashed in our banks, dress in skins, eat banana’s and shit in the woods.

Picture
0 Comments

The Emperor’s New Art

14/8/2016

0 Comments

 

A fraudulent tailor who’d sold the emperor a suit of non-existent clothes was thrown out of the empire with a warning never to return. Because the emperor of this new empire was an art lover the scammer decided to become an artist.
He bought a square of canvass and some tubes of acrylic paint and in a stroke of genius he fed the paint to his dog who after a while regurgitated the paint together with his dinner all over their white canvas.
He then put on his eccentric bohemian attire and presented himself to the imperial art committee and said, “I am a great artist, so brilliant, so avant-garde, and so tormented by my talent that my work can only be understood by the truly sophisticated. Ordinary people—well! Ordinary people look at my paintings and say, ‘That looks like dog vomit,’ but that simply shows how pedestrian their tastes are, how little they understand the true sublimity of which art is capable. But you, ladies and gentlemen, you are persons of refined taste and deep aesthetic sensitivity. I know that you will appreciate—” He held up the canvas on which the dog had thrown up. “—the first great work of the Borborygmist school of art!”
 
Now of course the first thought of every member of the imperial art committee was that the painting looks like dog vomit. As soon as that thought entered their minds, though, every one of them immediately thought that their tastes are pedestrian and that they don’t understand the true sublimity of which art is capable. So none of them said anything at first. Then one, who felt a little more insecure than the others and felt he had to prove that he didn’t have pedestrian tastes, said, “This is indeed a great work of art.” All the others thought, “He must have refined taste and deep aesthetic sensitivity.” So they all began to praise the painting, and the more they looked at it, the more they succeeded in convincing themselves that it couldn’t be what it obviously was, that is, a canvas on which a dog had thrown up.
 
So the artist sold the painting to the Emperor for a tidy sum. The Emperor didn’t actually think much of it—his first thought on seeing it was, “That looks like dog vomit”—but since all the members of the imperial art committee insisted that it was a great masterpiece and only people with pedestrian tastes thought it looked like dog vomit, he kept his mouth shut and tried to convince himself that it really was a masterpiece. One day, though, when the painting had been put on display for the public, and the artists and the members of the art committee and the Emperor himself were standing there beaming, a little child came up, took one look at the painting, and said, “That looks like dog vomit.”
 
The artists, the committee members, and the Emperor all looked down their noses at the child and said, “Child, you obviously know nothing about art.” So the child went away, and the artist lived happily ever after—and that, my friends, is most of what you need to know about the history of modern art.



Picture
0 Comments

Diversity? Spare me.

19/7/2016

0 Comments

 
In a desperate attempt to appease minorities of all shades bent on starting a race war, Politiclowns are frantically peddling the virtues of diversity. They postulate that diversity is our strength without ever specifying why it is a strength. It seems to have no benefit to modern western society beyond street gangs, rape and genital mutilation. While the desirability of these advances is beyond dispute, it nonetheless seems to me that diversity has minor drawbacks worthy of consideration.
 
If we closely examine some of the resplendent marvels of diversity and the onward march of human betterment and happiness attendant thereunto we could conclude that relations, say between, Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, Hindus and Moslems in India, Blacks and Whites in South Africa, Turks and Armenians and Kurds in Turkey, Sunnis and Shias throughout the Arabic countries and of course Europeans and Moslems, would be neighbourly, polite and respectful. Instead they have only produced bloodbaths.
 
From this shining example one might rightly conclude that diversity is the principal cause of human misery. In Europe and America, increasing cross-colour-religion attacks (generally reported under the heading “Terrorism”) are becoming the norm. Politiclowns point fingers in every direction except the direction of their failed quest for “diversity”.
The wholesale importation of Moslems from so called war zones is reaching the point at which they have become the grave and irremediable problem that they are everywhere else.
 
Lay the blame where you will: on racists of every creed, on God or genes or sunspots, but take a moment to reflect on how much of the trouble reported daily in the news arises from “diversity”. For example, achievement gaps, suspension rates in schools, rapes, honour killings, shootings by police, shootings of blacks by blacks, complaints of discrimination, interracial gang-beatings, affirmative action, mass demonstrations, actual terrorism, shootings of policemen, demands for censoring of books and the removal of statues. Diversity is by a wide margin the worst nightmare facing Western civilization.
 
All of which would suggest even to the most sceptical that diversity is a terrible idea. Mix different kinds of people and you get trouble. Even Politiclowns, afflicted by the twin scourges of liberalism and conservatism despise each other and do not willingly associate. Feminists and men, city slickers and rednecks, dogs and cats—all hate each other. So what should the response be?
 
Isn’t it obvious? We should import more weird, backward, dull-witted, useless, and inassimilable civilizational disasters, many of which have produced nothing more technologically challenging than the pointed stick. What could be a better idea? And once we’ve got them, there’s no getting rid of them.
 
It is considered good manners to regard all cultures as equally meritorious, but let us take off our rose tinted glasses and see this idea for what it really is—political idiocy.
Suppose that Emile, David, Karl or Antonio in some small town in Europe mutilated his daughter’s genitals, refused to let them go to school, forced them to wear funny black bags, didn’t let them go out alone, made them marry smelly elderly Pakistanis against their will, or killed them if they weren’t virgins, would he be considered a good father and upstanding member of the community? No, but that is exactly what we are importing – honourable, decent people who just happen to have a different culture to our own.
 
Just pointing out that this absurdity, this thirteenth-century nightmarish sub-humanism is just not dandy, makes one an Islamophobe.
And even the do-gooders, leftist altruists and the Politico-sentimentalists who make it their life’s work to apologise for Islam’s bad behaviour are considered by the desert dwellers as infidels to be killed on sight.
 
But it is all just fairy tales. The foundation of Western political thinking, if such a thing exists, is that we should all love one another and just get along despite our cultural differences – in the name of diversity.
 
It might be a good idea for us to use such minor rational capacity as we have to avoid doing stupid things that will have a heavy price. The world is what it is, not what we want it to be. Mixing even civilized peoples is not a good idea. Put thirty million Japanese in Italy, or Greeks in Japan, and trouble will result. This, even though the Japanese are an advanced and well-behaved people, and Italians and Greeks are reasonably close. But Somalis, for God’s sake? Syrians?
 
The human animal is hard-wired to be hostile to other groups, to strangers, to intruders. It is the dog-pack instinct. This limbic paranoia manifests itself all through life. I call it “territorial fury”.
 
When people have no cause for conflict, they invent it.
 
Diversity? Spare me.

Picture
0 Comments

Anomie

8/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Anomie is a condition of instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals. Social entropy is a measure of the natural decay within a social system. Decomposition of social structure happens when disrespect for people, places, things and even beliefs becomes acceptable by the majority, and condoned by those who pretend to lead society.
When those institutions charged with maintaining order through justice and education become frozen in a state of denial and are no longer able (or even willing) to perform their services to society, then Anomie is no longer a threat but a reality.
 
But what is reality in contemporary (western) society?
Our everyday reality has become so distorted that we dive headlong into the abyss of virtual reality; life is lived staring into little screens and answers to all questions can be found on Google. (Un)reality shows pollute even the most serious television channels, madia reports only that which is likely to increase audience and cinema has become a journey into total phantasmagorical nonsense.
 
Anything goes and nothing matters.
 
Everyone is entitled - Everyone (and everything) has “rights”.
Unions have the right to violence. Corporations have the right to kill you for profit. Strangers have the right enter your country and to usurp your culture and your lifestyle. Politicians have the right to incompetence. Humans have the right to rape and abuse nature (and natural behavior) ….
 
Awareness fosters no dissent.
Everyone is so afraid of losing their “rights”, “possessions” their “status” or their iPhone that they dare not challenge their inevitable transformation into toxic, brain-dead, overweight zombies.
Virtual reality becomes a sort of escape or subconscious sidelining.  
Few have realized that Anomie has begun and no-one wants to face that reality.
 
Natural laws are a certainty.
Gravity will always make the apple fall, the sun will always rise in the East and the entropy of any isolated system always increases.
 
Then there is the thorny question of the survival of the fittest.
In a society that is moving from cooperation and advancement towards conflict and chaos (Social Entropy) it is the individual that ultimately becomes the fittest because society is no longer there to protect the weak, the lame and the lazy.
 
And what about religion?
In a social system caught up in Anomie conflict between religion and liberty is assured.
Contemporary western society has evolved into such a pathetic conglomeration of do-gooders (because everyone has “rights”) that the weakest are devouring the strongest through a complex chain reaction of forced subliminal acquiesce. All the while Islam has evolved into such an acceptable adjunction to our way of life (because everyone is afraid of terrorists) that we agree and even applaud while fanatics devour the moderates through coercion.
 
And me?
I continue to observe this spectacle in wide eyed bemusement and wonder. Occasionally I will get upset or outraged to the point of abusing my keyboard. But overall I am not concerned for myself; I am near the exit and will not witness the final chapter when the little screens eventually lose their pixels and people are forced to stare at the barren world in which they have been a virtual tourist.
 

Picture
0 Comments

Consequenses of saving the wolf

23/4/2016

0 Comments

 
Here is a Chinese fable that is so relevant to what is going on in the world today:
 
King Jian Zi was leading a hunting party through Zhongshan when he happens to come across a wolf. King Jian takes aim with his bow and arrow but misses and hits a stone instead. The wolf flees through the forest with the hunting party in pursuit. As the wolf makes its way through the forest he comes across a traveling Mohist scholar Mr. Dongguo. The wolf appeals to the scholar's belief of "universal love" and implores for his help. Mr. Dongguo takes pity on the creature and hides it in one of the book bags strapped to his donkey.
 
When the hunters approach him, Mr. Dongguo denies any knowledge of the wolf's whereabouts. After the hunters leave Mr. Dongguo lets the wolf out of his bag and gets back on his donkey to take his leave only to be stopped by the wolf. The wolf asks the scholar to save his life again, this time from starvation. Mr. Dongguo offers the wolf some pastries, but the wolf smiles and says "I don't eat those, I dine solely on meat". Puzzled, Mr. Dongguo inquires if the wolf intends to eat his donkey and the wolf replies "No, no, donkey meat is no good". The donkey, upon hearing this, bolts from the scene as fast as its four legs to carry it leaving Mr. Dongguo behind with the wolf. To Mr. Dongguo's surprise, the hungry wolf pounces on him and announces his intention to eat him. When Mr. Dongguo protests at the wolf's ingratitude, the wolf presents the argument that since the scholar saved his life once why not do it again? By becoming the starving wolf’s meal, the scholar will have fulfilled the act of saving the wolf’s life. Besides, the wolf argued that it nearly suffocated while it was crammed inside of the scholar's bag and because of this the scholar must make amends.
 
Dongguo and the wolf debated the question and finally decided to present their case to the judgment of three elders.
 
The first elder they present their argument to is an old withering apricot tree. The tree relates its own experience to the two on how when it was young, children used to pick its fruits from its branches and the tree would tell them to eat their fill. Now it was about to be chopped down to provide firewood. The tree sides with the wolf. The wolf is very pleased.
 
The second elder they present their argument to was an elderly water buffalo. The buffalo tells its story of how it served its masters for many years dutifully providing him with milk and plowing his fields. Now his master wants to butcher it so he can eat his meat. The buffalo too sides with the wolf. The wolf grins and feels even more justified in his request to eat the scholar. Mr. Dongguo reminds the wolf that they have one more elder to seek out.
 
The last elder they present their argument to is an elderly farmer. The farmer was skeptical and didn't believe that the wolf could fit into the bag. To illustrate its point, the wolf crawled back into the bag and right away the old farmer tied up the bag and started to beat the wolf with his hoe. The farmer bashes the wolf to an inch of his life then unties the bag and drags his dying wolf out of the bag.
 
Seeing the pitiful wolf, the scholar thinks that the old farmer was too cruel but just then a weeping woman comes running towards them. She pointed to the wolf and told Mr. Dongguo and the farmer how it dragged off her little boy. Mr Dongguo now no longer pitied the wolf. He picks up the hoe and strikes the final blow to the wolf's head.

0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author

    tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor ...

    Archives

    July 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly