Sunday, June 29, 2008

Regarding the Home, the Demos and their Commissaries

( special article)

Common logic, which ensures the survival and welfare of all the entities on earth belonging at least to the fauna, in which humans are also included, is something which we have many times said we possess from birth as our basic weapon of survival and we are obliged to practice it and develop it throughout our lives.

We are also obliged to use to the fullest the general common logic as it has become shaped through the eons so that it can accommodate and protect as much as possible the coming generations, based on the essence of experience of the departing ones.

Great attention is required in order to have a vertical and clear separation between common logic (which is priceless and necessary) and common opinion (which is confounded, rarely confirmable and usually destructive as it is presented). While common logic is in essence simple but fundamental positions based on the knowledge of the relationship of action-reaction and prediction exactly as in the results of a longitudinal and wide-sample research (and therefore very reliable and representative, almost at the level of natural law), common opinion is the exact opposite of that since it is based on subjective and superficial evaluation of situations and values on the basis of influence and imposition: common opinion is not driven by a need for objective representation of reality geared to correct conclusion drawing but by a need for inclusion to the general group with unconditional agreement and consent to anything that is presented as position of the general group as a ticket in.

For example: a child who wants to be included in the game during recess by the big group of kids will agree or copy the behavior the big group of kids has towards another child/ the teachers/ the cleaning staff/ etc regardless of whether this same child considers this behavior correct/ prudent/ constructive or not (that is why many children feel bad after school).

On the same token which is exactly what drives common opinion, operates every person who needs ‘to be included in the game’ and for the sake of this big group he/she sacrifices principles, time, money, family, self esteem and even his/her body and life- against his/her common logic, the first priority of which is the protection and well being of the aforementioned things.

Yes, but man is a social being, therefore man cannot survive on his/her own and the ones who can are ‘unnatural’ and unhappy. Therefore I am not going against common logic by following common opinion. Isn’t that so?

Unfortunately it is not so. We will follow common logic to prove why not. For certain, man is a social being. But have we realized what we mean by this term? We must always be careful with terms and concept we are told because many times they are presented in a way that they are undefined and each one infers what each ones already believes/is afraid the term or concept means and not the meaning under discussion.

So, when we say that man is a social being we mean that man is made to be an independent part of a group of equally independent individuals so that man will be able to contribute along with the contributions of all the other people for the achievement of a common goal which is clear and commonly accepted by all the individuals of the group and equally constructive for everyone. Man, therefore, is the agent of an idea/ goal/ policy which will yield fruit for him/herself as well as the other people equally well: man, that is, is socially positively oriented, a social being.

However, what happens on the basis of need for someone to be included in a group which is driven by common opinion and the policy of this common opinion does not render man a social but an anti-social being: it renders him a dependent person seeking the lending of his/her potential to some other individual (which spells out blind obeisance and following without the contribution of any estimation/ constructive thought to anything) in the form of contribution, aiming at the reward of waiving of responsibility but also any further participation and contribution in common affairs. Therefore with the consent of any ‘common opinion’ without any presence of evaluation process regarding the quality and correctness of that opinion, the people who follow it (and are ‘in’/ ‘trendy’/ ‘opinionated’/ ‘progressive’/ ‘liberal’/ ‘open-minded’/ ‘intellectual’/ ‘clever’ / etc) buy out their obligation to oversee and protect the interest of their own selves and society, indifferent to the fate of this society and their own person. Therefore these people are extremely anti-social and therefore against the nature of man to be a social being. Therefore, these are the people who are unnatural, sick and harmful.

The man who is truly a social being (i.e. a healthy representative of his/her kind) is the one interested primarily to protect and promote natural health, mental health and psychological health as well as the potential for development in a positive and augmenting trajectory regarding intellect which, in its own turn, will defend even more the types of health I mentioned. This cannot be achieved with technical education alone (i.e. studies of all kinds) but with full use and understanding of common logic and its principles.

And what are those?

The basic principles of common logic are universal and absolute and very simple. In particular:

1. I do not consent to anything before I examine it thoroughly. Time which is invested in the examining before the decision is made is a fraction of the time saved by avoiding future problems which would arise from a forced, superficial or ignorant decision, the resolving of which is time consuming, energy consuming and high cost.

2. If I am burdened with time constraints to ‘hurry and catch an opportunity’ then 99.9% of the cases there is a trap or other kind of foul play which if I was allowed to exercise principle 1, I would immediately see. Therefore I prefer to ‘lose the opportunity’ and keep my possessions.

3. If I am being psychologically blackmailed to take back or not act according to a decision I have made based on principle 1 because I am being threatened I will be badly characterized, or turned away from the group or lose some priviledges or appreciation or anything else which is unfounded and non-tangible, supported by the opinion of third parties and many times undefined third parties, then I know my decision is very correct and it will yield me power and status for me and my real group.

4. I do not under any circumstances accept the existence of so called ‘gray areas’. The gray area is synonymous to anarchy, anomy, lawlessness as well as a lack of logic and positive motive and goals from those endorsing and enforcing it (and from which they benefit in one way or the other). If the so called gray area does not clear our in fully understandable black and whites then I refuse to be part of and participate in the process as it will not be in my control and that of my common logic and therefore I am in danger personally as well as the ones I am representing.

5. I do not accept and I oppose anyone trying to avoid clearing out the gray area for me, claiming that I am not capable of grasping it, it is impossible to be explained in simpler terms, it is not my jurisdiction to understand it, he/she has no time to explain it to me, or for any other reason does not accept to make it clear. If the process of action – reaction (that is, how the action about to take place will have the result it claims it will) is not clear in all individuals without exception, regardless of their socio-political and educational level and who have not suffered brain damage, then there is possible foul play or unclear action and we are obligated for the sake of our interests and those of the group we represent not to consent and bring opposition.

6. I do not accept that actions necessary for my survival and that of my social group like principle 5 is impractical, utopian or impossible. The being possessing the capacity to discover the way to split the atom, live in all the range of geological/climatic conditions, discover the way to cancel out gravity, viruses and bacteria can find the way and the method to explain methods, policies, strategies, reports, balances and so on so that principle 5 and all the others can be achieved.

7. I do not accept any kind of violent enforcement upon my person and my intellect whether this is attempted by few or many, by regimes, governments, committees, councils, newspapers, magazines, television, authors, awars, scientists, high profile people and others: all without fail will have to be able to convince on the basic of common logic without implicating technical knowledge that is none of my concern, and without pressuring me through propaganda and blackmail or lack of time so I can make my estimations.

8. I do not accept the concept of ‘done deals’ or ‘drawn conclusions/ complete processes/ perpetual conditions’: the being having managed to turn away age-old torrential rives, change the shape of shores created after millennia and be enforced only on the force of his/her common logic against the natural weapons of other predators has the capacity and obligation to reform anything undermining his/her existence.

9. I am not deterred from my course by blackmail that I will be alone. I am a social being and by following the above principles I show that I possess the power and force to support constructively other social beings who by nature will be attracted to me. Therefore I shall never be isolated. On the contrary, the other, anti-social beings trying to blackmail me in this way are the ones ravaged by alienation, isolation and loneliness.

10. I do not accept that there are dead ends, unsolvable situations, inert situations because of the concept of ‘between a rock and a hard place’. All the situations have a positive solution which is fully constructive and the only reason that anti-social beings try to thwart the solution is because in a truly constructive solution, their weakness and lack of intellect would become apparent and therefore they would have a position no higher of that of a dependent in the social group.

These basic principles of common logic hold for our selves and all the social groups from the family to the state to international alliances. Based, then, on these principles of common logic, we will analyze the current statements of several people who improperly hold positions of leadership or responsibility in the Greek state. Of course, given that the profile of these people is the same internationally, the only thing changing for other countries in terms of content in this blog, is the names.

Sunday, June 22, 2008


From very early in the upbringing and socialization of each one of us we are taught to sustain a perpetual intimidation and twisting of the proper concept for action, reaction and feedback of a person with its environment on a social but also physical level. Today, instead of starting by demonstrating what is the wrong take and then what is the proper standing of things, regardless of propaganda or philosophy, we will begin by showing what truly and invariantly holds for humans and their effect on society and the environment and in no case can change, whether we take it into account or not.

From the moment of birth or even conception, the person has a great effect on his/her environment because on an already existing situation (regardless of the quality of this situation) is inserted the self as a new factor and primarily as a much-promising undefined variable. Always and in every case the new person arriving acts as a catalyst for the far more intense behavior and alignment of all the people of his/her direct and then soon enough his/her greater social circle. But just like every catalyst on all levels and aspects of nature, from chemistry to psychology DOES NOT ACT AS A TRANSFORMER OF PEOPLE AND SITUATIONS BUT AS A FORCE MAKING THE ALREADY EXISTING PROCESS AND REACTION COME ABOUT FASTER AND MORE INTENSELY.

That is to say, a baby arriving to a couple which does not have a base of cohesion and harmony between themselves (not in the case that manipulation is potentially masking the true relationship existing) will, as a catalyst, bring to the fore the lack of cohesion and harmony that pre-existed, in very vivid colours. A baby arriving to a couple having the base of cohesion and harmony even if under attack by manipulation of third parties, will act as a catalyst and bring to the fore this cohesion and harmony in equally vivid colours.

The arrival of a new person will greatly strengthen the already existing positions and alignments of his/her environment BUT IN NO CASE WILL HE/SHE CHANGE OR TRANSFORM AN ALREADY EXISTING STANCE INTO A DIFFERENT ONE. It is possibly that the surface behavior change drastically but this change of ‘course’ takes place only so that it will coincide with the alignment and motivation already pre-existing. E.g. a mother who truly and actually as her children as first priority and not her husband or her parents or herself may, before the arrival of her offspring or even during carrying or the first stages of upbringing, consent to and act in ways that do not give priority to this offspring if she herself is manipulated into believing that it is ‘for the good of the children/ so that she won’t harm them/ so that she won’t hold them back/ so that she won’t make them weird/ so that she won’t make them like herself/ etc’. However, from the moment that this mother realizes that what she is pushed to do for her child are not only not correct but also very harmful, the catalytic effect of the child is triggered since the mother acts according to her always existing priority of her offspring’s wellbeing and does not allow anything that is harmful to them exist in their environment. If the realization of the harmful effect of the environment on the child does not push the parents to stake a direct and drastic stance to protect the child, then immediately and by default they have taken a stance and demonstrated in high relief the true order of priority/ loyalty/ faith/ values driving them regardless of what they profess. That is the exact catalytic effect of a person on his/her environment and it is unavoidable.

Why did we present all of the above and how do they serve as an illustration of the true essence, action, reaction and feedback of the person within society?

With the above example which is universally in effect in all cases without exception, regardless of culture or socio-economic level, we demonstrate directly that a person, by his/her mere existence alone, has huge impact on his/her environment equaling the chain reaction of a nuclear explosion. Also, we demonstrated that this type of impact takes place whether we decide to act/react or whether we get scared and remain idle: in both occurrences we characterize ourselves and the matching responsibilities to that characterization is noted one way or the other.

What do we want to say with this?

We want to say and demonstrate the very simple but in the same time terribly threatening truth for several people that nobody, regardless and despite efforts to throw off responsibility, is relieved of responsibility but is answerable to it.

Why is this threatening?

Because from a very young age we are taught that responsibility is an axe hovering over the head of every person, ready to lop it off, and the intelligent thing to do in this society is to manage to push your own axe away so that it hovers over someone else’s head, regardless if that axe still remains yours. Therefore, to be told that this axe will not cease to hover over your head but will remain and possibly become even bigger is absolutely threatening.

Yes, but so many manage (from politicians, business people, royalty to parents, relatives and friends) to throw off their responsibilities and heap them on someone else, making others pay for them. How then, is it impossible to throw off responsibility?

Responsibilities are never thrown off and this can be proven in all occasions, but especially in the cases of leaders of all shapes and sizes, since everyone can clearly and directly demonstrate or reveal the culprit for many conditions from high price rate to migration status around the world, and since everyone agrees to phrases like ‘all politicians are dirty/ bought/ servants of big money’. So what is going on?

What is going on is that immediately after the very accurate estimation and ascription of responsibility, follows the rhetorical question ‘and what can one do?’ or some comment declaring inability/ weakness of the type ‘let’s not look at that/ one can’t do a thing/ a lost cause/ etc’.


Therefore, just like in the case of the parent who does not have his/her offspring as first priority, even if claiming he/she does, the politician and any other type of leader acts as a catalyst and demonstrates fully that the true alignment of the citizen is not towards personal and general improvement of daily life but on the contrary, towards the maximization of hardship and objectification of the fellow man, and therefore the citizen’s own self as well. Every single citizen, by the lack of actual reaction and control of the representatives who obviously do not assume responsibilities or keep their promises shows that this citizen consents and approves of the condition being enforced. This now is broadcasted even through the mass media and the statements of state representatives when they claim, and rightfully so in this case, that ‘the people approves/ consents/ orders/ wants the behavior they are displaying’

But how can you say that when all the world is in upheaval with strikes, demonstrations and ‘boycotts’?

Unfortunately, all of this is a smoke screen and an excuse so that all the world can feel they have done their duty and will not be asked to answer for or will not be blamed that in reality they are consenting to the subjugation that is happening, while in the same time will achieve nothing so that they and their neighbour (who is a measure of primary importance) will be subjugated and integrated in a status quo in which somehow, everyone has someone oppressing them and someone whom they oppress in their own turn (even if that someone is the homeless person on the street or the stray cat).

The strikes, marches, demonstrations and partial (not full and complete) boycotts consist the first part of a threat from the people to its representatives which threat, however, never (since 1970) actualizes. The strike or the demonstration has an effect when every single one of the strikers or members of the demonstration is fully prepared not to engage the police or SWAT team forces, but to see all the slogans on the pickets he/she is carrying come to pass. That is, when the picket says that ‘the social security reform will not pass’, it will have to be set in stone and when the representative/ politician call the bluff, it must be shown that it is not a bluff by completely ignoring the reform laws, including refusal to pay taxes and conform to anything the reform will attempt to enforce.

Every single protester must be prepared to do this even if he/she stands alone.

So, I will fight so that some millions of insured in the social security will benefit from me?

You will be fighting for your own self. The first and many times only one benefiting will be you and those you love. Only if you truly hate your own self will you not look to end the abuse taking place in your face just because there is chance for someone else to benefit as well (like the neighbour). Only if truly deep down you like to suffer and watch others suffer will you continue to consent to this situation.

Which situation could be stopped dead in 3 to 4 days if these thousands of protestants claiming to be determined to truly refuse to obey to an authority the power of which exists in the agreement of these same people to obey and suffer. Thousands of people refusing to pay a tax cannot be persecuted for it.

A simple and completely painless decision to have an entire city remain at home and not spend a single euro (or dollar or pound) for 24 hours is enough to arrest this whole apparent ‘rampant’ condition of augmenting prices of oil, food, services since, for the average merchant or business person it would constitute an arbitrary loss of a single day’s income but for the international corporations and great off short companies it would constitute loss of several millions of euro and a definite stop of their course.

This action alone from the several that exist is enough leverage to control the social situation and show to the political representatives that the only thing they truly are is servants with uncertain power and jurisdiction.

Historically the above has been proven to be fully successful and effective even with a less that full participation or even with a less than 50% of the population participating in completely totalitarian regimes.

And what when I am completely alone?

Then you are even stronger if you use other avenues meant for single units.

And which are those?

Although we are going to examine these with greater depth in the next article, I will mention one of the Basic Truths from which a very powerful method is derived:

Basic Truth number 4: “The state avoids the laws and therefore tries to maintain ignorance of the law in the citizens.”

The first thing you must do (not in general but only regarding to the particular case concerning you personally) is to be informed and read the four or five law and two or three legislations concerning your matter on any given time.

Attention: we must not read the laws and legislations with fear, seeking to see what we are forbidden to do, but with care and critical thought to see through which avenue we will succeed to defend or achieve what we want (fact which is applied broadly but sloppily by all of those embezzling and abusing. We simply are going to learn in the next article how we will do the same cleverly in order to retain our freedom, independence and well being).

Sunday, June 15, 2008


A great inhibitor which stops the full influence and power a person can have on his/her environment is the concept of ‘protector and avenger of the weak’. In every culture and mythology we can see such figures (e.g. Robin Hood, Zorro and others) which embody the nemesis and shield of an otherwise idle, incompetent and not particularly bright mass with limited usefulness.

And why is a figure or symbol bringing hope and relief to an oppressed people inhibitory?

In psychology a very important element affecting the prognosis of any incident of psychopathology or problem/crisis management in the person’s environment is what we call ‘locus of control’: that is, the concept of the control node, so to speak, of our self and our environment. If we are truly and soundly convinced that we do not have control over the things happening to us, our destiny and the potential effect we can have around, then we truly cannot resolve anything obstructing our daily ‘all’s well’. But if we are truly and soundly convinced that we have or can acquire control and influence on what is happening to us, our destiny and our environment, then we become powerful, actually individuals and elements of society who can ensure the ‘all’s well’ of daily like of ourselves and others.

The symbol or figure of Zorro and any type of Zorro steals exactly this element which makes a person a powerful fighter and successful defender of all who are important and valuable to him/her. With the concept of Zorro, people do not think how to correct themselves their problems but, at best, how to find someone else who will solve them for them while they stand idle or, at worst, how God abandoned them because He did not have a fighter drop from the sky to solve their problems and does not accept or even imagine that God has made them, themselves, fighters and defenders.

Even in the actual case of the myths of Zorro or Robin Hood, let’s imagine what would happen if those heroes, instead of acting as they saw fit and felt they could, they began brooding over how there is nobody to defend them…

But isn’t it smart or safe to sit at the sidelines and let someone else ‘pull the coals out of the fire’?

Of course the answer is no, but let’s explore the assumption. Is it truly safe to sit idle, passive or inert? What do I salvage is I do not take corrective action for my environment and my self?

In essence, I salvage nothing. What I do not want to happen to me happens easily and quickly and instead of making my own life easier, I make it easy for the ones who are making mine harder. That which I salvage is the illusion that I am not under siege and nobody is after me, exactly like the ostrich relieves itself psychologically by hiding its head and not seeing the predator coming for it. The ostrich convinces itself that it is safe. Of course, up until the first time the predator’s teeth sink in its flesh.
By the same logic, the citizen sits idle and passive, just nagging about the price rate, the bad foreign policy, the bad coordination, the embezzling and stealing of public funds and the great level of corruption while waiting for the one who will stop all that for him/her. But nobody comes, Zorro and Robin Hood exist only in books and movies and the citizen allows everything that is hurting him/her slowly but certainly kill him/her.

Yes, but if I try to take the coals out of the fire, I will be the imbecile who got burned for everyone else who is going to reap the gains from my efforts, if I succeed.

Primarily, the ‘coals’ in all the forms they may take never sit idly in the fire without bothering anyone. On the contrary, the coals burn continually and without limit everyone without exception, whether the people are trying to pull them out of the fire or not. In all facets of everyday life this occurs, but let us pick one which occupies everyone’s thoughts strongly: the tax revenue service.

The tax revenue service is a coal feared by many people. Since forever, since I was a little girl I was told stories by my father and my mother who were working in the tax revenue service and the public contribution / cashtill office (for the chemical/pharmaceutical and anonymous companies respectively) and which stories showed vividly how this ‘coal’ would protect the big capital-holding parties and mercilessly chased after everyone else. Everyone else trembled and with great fear lest they anger, intimidate, draw the attention of or oppose the ‘coal’ was trying to hide from it with great percentages of failure. Especially in the case where mercy, humanity or compassion was invoked by everyone else, the ‘coal’ was particularly hard and merciless, fact which pushed my father to put stoppers to it and managed to, for everyone who was not scared and followed his advice, right up to a few days before he was murdered.

So what do we conclude, therefore? That not pulling your own coals from the fire simply feeds them and brazen it out so that from a simple coal it becomes a flaming boulder. To resist and be fully prepared to pull the coal out of the fire makes the coal panic and react in a way making it even more vulnerable.

Yes, but your father who resisted the ‘coal’ got killed by it.

That is not entirely accurate. My father was indeed murdered by these ‘coals’ as we call them today, but this happened because he didn’t behave in general in the manner he acted in his area of expertise, tax and accounting economics. When we do decide to pull the coals out of the fire, we also decide to pull on the appropriate gloves and approach with the proper manner instead of offering a target when we do not need to. That means that every action we take must be calmly and coolly designed in the frame of strategy of the defensive/protective policy we are following. Also, we will have to be clearly aware that we are up against something sly and shameless which has very specific weapons and way of using them. We protect ourselves from these weapons with a few acts of common sense and prevention. From then on, the ‘coals’ are powerless and the only thing they will be able to do is show us all the ways we can extinguish them. That which my father did not do while he had been warned by me was avoid the dangerous moments of ‘thin ice’ allowing the ‘coals’ to be sly and do what they are afraid to do while hiding behind a smoke screen, like that day of November 17, 1973 was.

So what is the general conclusion of all of the above?

The general conclusion is that all of us have already experienced the worst and every day this ‘worst’ is worsening, leading with certainty to haunting scenarios which coincide with those of prisoners, hostages, serfs, concentration camp inmates or exiles in barren islands. This is unavoidable if we continue like this, that is waiting for someone else (liberator, anarchist, delegate, organization, philanthropist, personage, politician, king, appointed religious leader, state, international schemas, etc) to correct for us the wrongdoings and return to us the well being and the dignity that is being stolen from us daily. This ‘someone else’ will do it on the surface and for a reward/compensation he/she will ask for him/herself alone that very same amount or more of what was stolen. Historical examples of such ‘protectors’ of the People are numerous, such as Napoleon, Julius Caesar, George Washington, Lenin, Hitler, King Otto of Greece and all the ‘agents of freedom and/or change’ of Greek post-war and post-change-over.

Therefore it is much safer and much more definitely directed to daily well being and quality of life if we are decided each one of us on his/her own and regardless of organization/coordination/contribution by others/ ratification of our actions by the environment to resist and deny to concede to the egregious law-breaking, law-bending and abuse of every representative of the ‘coals’ so that we will be forcing the coals to pull themselves out of the fire.

Is this possible?

It is not only possible it is certain. Persistence and refusal to accept intimidatory moves and blackmail which in essence have no object (to be threatened to be made poorer when the blackmailer is already doing it to you with geometric speed is not intimidatory if you are aware that the blackmailer is already doing to you what he/she is threatening to do) make the adversary take to his/her heels, while protesting of course, because this adversary is impudent and cowardly and his/her unchanging policy is ‘shoot in the dark and hope it works’. The shot lands only when we become frightened and we get the target shot for the adversary on our own instead of showing to him/her that if he/she does not behave properly, he/she will be dismissed from the social group.

How can I do this alone without organization or support from my environment?

By keeping in mind the following Basic Truths:

The state is dirty and therefore is afraid of clarity.
The state is dirty but maintains a superficial semblance of clarity and modesty which it wants to keep at all costs, even with a threadbare excuse.
The state is afraid of its own citizens.
The state is afraid of its responsibilities.
The state avoids the laws and therefore tries to maintain ignorance of the law in the citizens.
The state threatens and manipulates, therefore just as we have previously displayed about those who want and seek the creation and maintenance of Free Bondsmen, it feels weak and incapable to face any actual opposition.

By applying the actions derived from the Basic Truths daily in our life and routine, something which we will analyze in extent with concrete directions in the next article, demonstrating how every citizen can easily police (that is, enforce proper functioning according to the principles of Human Rights, the Constitution and the derived laws) all the agents, representatives and functionaries he/she is funding in order to be served, as well as other citizens who are dysfunctioning.

Generally, what we must draw and realize today, letting it sink in and become part of our reality so that we will be able to move on further and become actually, not only potentially, forceful and powerful, is that the only police person who will truly do the job well and always for us is us, ourselves, alone. If we rest easy or trust that someone else will guard our back, someone who has given no proof or guarantee that he/she has ever done so (on the contrary he/she has shown greatly that he/she is doing the opposite), we will end up one way or the other like my father who, while a fighter, lowered his shield in the midst of battle, or like the anonymous deceased of the mass grave where they bury the subdued of the non-combatant population.

Saturday, June 7, 2008


When we refer to the concept of thievery and of thieves, we get the mental image of a burglar, a mugger and in general of simple criminal law-breakers alone.

If a burglar hits a house or a mugger robs people, the result is disastrous for them, not only from a financial aspect but also from a psychological one, with a strong impact which could be chronic if the victims do not seek adequate help in time. Those law-breakers, therefore, are rightfully persecuted and punished by the law on the occasion that there are sufficient conditions for their arrest. Unfortunately, far too many times they remain at large and unpunished, either because of inability of the police to locate them or because of other factors which make the police appear weak or inept when in reality it isn’t.

If now we use the logic of the babushka to explore the existence of the model of thievery, thieves and the police in relation to those on a wider level than the one of the individual, what shall we find?

We will find the exact same situation which holds for the thieves and burglars on the individual level on all the ranks and levels of social life and scale.

What do we mean by this?

The concept of thieving in all cases involves the violent removal or embezzlement of fortune, material or mental, which evidently belongs to another group or person than the one removing it. This occurs daily nearly everywhere:

1. In the public sector services:

The first thing which is stolen in any public sector service is the psychological calm of the civilian. This occurs because instead of respect towards the civilian and a conscious effort to satisfy him/her with adequate service, exactly like all employees do for their employer, the roles are reversed. The civilian acts as a bondservant and is afraid that he/she may make the public servant angry.

This happens because there is no policing on this particular area where thieving is taking place. On the contrary, this type of thieving is promoted, because there is no substantial capacity given to the civilian, that he/she is aware of and understands, so there will exist a possibility for the public servant committing the act of theft of psychological calm and sense of dignity to be fired or pay damages, as is the case often in the private sector businesses.

The second thing that is stolen from the civilian in a public sector service is the capacity to check and monitor public servants on how well or how correctly they perform their duties. The civilian must battle against the public servants he/she funds through taxes to have them perform administrative duties in order to receive information which he has an obligation and a right to know so that neither he/she nor the public servants will be against the law.

The third thing which is stolen from the citizen is property in various ways, from the enforcement of fines derived from the situation described above or by unlawful or improper actions and decisions, to the lack of reimbursement or the withholding of money in the case of an error on the part of the service and against the citizen.

The fourth thing which is stolen from the citizen is precious time which is squandered in delays, queues and collection of paperwork which is often pointless, and which time would normally be invested in the earning of money or rest or mental cultivation. This constitutes loss of income in all citizens for which they are never reimbursed.

2. in the mass media :

We are daily bombarded by messages through shows and advertisements which steal and embezzle self-confidence and worth, personal and ethnic pride, a sense of understanding and control as well as the sensation that we do have the capacity to control the environment in which we live.

Self-confidence and worth is stolen when through examples and arbitrary definitions of what is or can be liked, accepted, admired, successfully or normal. The advertisements project social and personal models which are either counterfactual/unreal or are in actuality completely harmful. They present these models as wanted, desired or demanded by peers so that the individual can exist substantially. Since these models cannot be achieved in the way that is presented or at all, the person loses his/her self-confidence and worth as being de facto a failure and a reject, regardless whether this is not actually true.

The shows steal self-worth not only of individuals but of entire social groups (such as women, parents, educators, athletes, police officers, doctors, children and others) as well as nations’ through stories or presentations and talks during which the social group under attack is depicted gratuitously and improperly as the basest in relation to an abstract counterpart, as uncultivated, uneducated, incorrigible, ridiculous, backward, fanatic and/or unethical. For example, Greek children are repeatedly presented as the most obese without proof that the research claiming this is methodologically and scientifically correct, if of course, it exists. This causes a sense of shame in the adults ethnically (since they are the children of Greece) and as parents (since their children have become ugly and unacceptable under their supervision: in this research obesity is presented as social stigma regardless the exhortations of ‘political correctness’ and ‘differentiation of individuals’ according to which it should not be presented as such). Also, obesity as a concept remains undefined just like the manner of the research of judging who is deemed obese and how it scientifically justifies this great generalization on an entire people.

In the same way, the sense of pride and power is stolen since it is taught on the level of brain wash by the mass media that the citizen is of low intelligence, incapable of critical thought and reasoning, nationalist, cruel, uncouth and self-serving and above all, weak and powerless.

3. on a governmental level:

From the Greeks but also any other citizen worldwide is stolen national property, individual property, cultural properly as well as all types of mental property and of course the energy demanded to acquire and maintain these properties and other achievements which are undermined and unsung.

Financial power has been robbed systematically since 1983 with the continuous depreciations and slides of the currency through which the buying capacity of the citizen has been arbitrarily lessened, fact which constitutes theft and embezzlement of the toil and power which fairly every person has earned. This phenomenon becomes more and more acute and the theft more and more gross with fabricated stock exchange crises, oil alerts and war threats on an international or local level. A bulge has occurred from the time of the installation of the euro through which was stolen more than 50% of the financial and buying power of the citizens (one of the sliest embezzlements with the contribution of the state, experts and the mass media through the stifling propaganda commanding civilians to accept the euro with the promise of future well-being, enrichment and safety through and by it). It continues with inflation and raising of the prices on a level not just of thieving but of piracy.

National property in the form of public enterprises, social security but also land and subsoil is embezzled and stolen silently and behind the scenes through the entering of public enterprises in the stock exchange or their denationalization, the merging of social security categories resulting in the stealing of their funds as well as the selling out of land and subsoil to business people (in the form of ports, roads, mines, natural reserves, airports, etc).

Cultural and historical property is lost with the arbitrary twisting of history against historical and anthropological proof as well as in the official or unofficial back-stepping or accepting claims of other ethnic groups which are unfounded, as well as in the enforcement of culture which has no ethnic identity beyond the tag ‘globalization’. This is highly harmful for all peoples without exception because it steals safety valves for the survival and development of every people. These had developed and evolved on the basis of the socio-political and geological conditions of the area of each nation, not only for survival and development but also for ensuring of cohesion in a frame of logic and sense of control in which the citizen could evolve and develop as mentioned (and as is historically proven by all the liberal movements which independently arose in all nations repeatedly over time), fact which is now rendered impossible since every citizen feels alien and alienated in his/her own land.

If we go to an even greater babushka we will see that exactly the same holds for the international level as far as theft and embezzlement taking place against the people and individuals is concerned.

Isn’t there any policing? At all?

Theoretically, policing exists but of course is not applied in its proper form (that is to prevent or persecute the thieves in order to protect the rightful owners) but in reverse, just as we described is the case of the public servant and the citizen: the peoples and the citizens are threatened and misinformed about the capacities of monitoring which they possess and the thieves are protected. But this can’t continue and the criminal activity is visibly curbed when the rightful owner (the citizen or the people) decide not to be threatened and to use the power they possess at any moment, which slyly and on purpose is wrongfully channeled into demonstrations or violent behavior.

But how can I have any impact if I don’t demonstrate or I don’t become armed and violent?

That is exactly what we will explore and answer in the next article.