During the whole of the so called modern society (i.e. society where there is high organization, specialization and compartmentalization of roles, and general alignment towards consumerism and high administrative organization) which is encountered in most contemporary states, especially the ones of Western philosophy and those who adopt it, there has been noted an escalating social illness which in our days is in an outbreak.
Before we go further, as in any scientific analysis, we are obligated to define our terminology so that we all understand and are certain what we are referring to:
With the term social illness we mean the social condition in which out of all the social groups within a society only one or two prosper, typically in a minority/ minute percentage of the whole, amassing a huge surplus of energy and money while the crushing majority of that society subsists or even expires due to assorted hardships on a material and psychological level.
With the term outbreak we mean the direct and speedy exacerbation of social illness to the point that social development is fully suspended.
With the term social development we mean the progressive course of all the groups in a society so that the average level of living, education, free time, medical care and freedom is systematically improved both in quantity and in quality. The product of social development is always the enrichment of philosophy, culture and additional pathways for the evolution of Humans from the basic, lower levels of existence to the higher ones which go beyond consumerism, materialism and the ascription of high social standing to objects.
Whenever there is social illness, social development is reduced depending on the level of infection/ affliction of society. In cases of outbreak, we have the suspension of social development and very often backtracking. Sociologically, modern society begins with the organization of politics and production in more or less the guidelines existing today. This, depending on the region, can be places since the 18th century and onwards at least. Since then and until today there has been noted periodically great social development (enlightenments, philosophical movements, existential theories, psychological and sociological programs, political and cultural movements, etc) which is abruptly stopped or even cancelled out from outbreaks of social illness (such as the industrial revolution and the social illness it incurred, the creation of economic science, the creation of checking mechanisms using blackmail or torture, the creation of mechanisms of categorization on a mass level, etc).
Many times we see tangible proof of this backsliding when we ‘re-discover’ situation, theories, philosophies, solutions and scientific methodologies/ answers which had already been discovered in earlier eras and due to social illness had been eradicated to a great level, forcing society to re-research and re-conquer that which society already was aware of before the outbreak (e.g. the concept of syndicalism and social equality were re-discovered many times during the course of history since antiquity until now, with such examples as the slaves’ syndicalism with Spartacus at the helm, the medieval craft unions in Europe, the syndicalism of the slaves in the USA, the syndicalism of women primarily with the suffragettes and afterwards with the feminists, etc). This means that due to the social illness from which society does not seem to ever be rid, society is forced to stagnate, battling for the same issue constantly and never securing it, in a form of ‘one step forward, two steps back’.
So, what is the source of social illness and why doesn’t it seem to be ever cured, just periodically go in remission?
Following the logic of the babushkas we have been in these articles, society is nothing more than the sum of the influences and actions of the people comprising it. An illness is because of either environmental factors causing the affliction, or to internal factors bringing about the same. If the factors were environments then with the change in the environment the illness should be eradicated or be differentiated.
In the case of society we can say with assurance that the factors are not environmental because in all the historical periods we have exactly the same symptoms with exactly the same behavior of society (i.e., the stagnation forcing society to oscillate and not develop). In another of our articles we will mention and analyze the truth of the matter for every historic period even before the sociological boundaries of the existence of modernity.
That means that the source of social illness, since it is not environmental, is internal. Therefore, just like in every organism, a part of society causes toxicity suspending the healthy development as we have mentioned above. Most philosophical and political/ sociological theories agree on this point and differentiate on the social group within society they hold responsible for this condition.
In essence, all theories built in the proper scientific methodology have grasped part of the truth and therefore are not wrong (from fundamentalism to Marxism to person-centered liberal social theories). But if we try to pick one as the only truth and reject all the rest it is certain that we will err and fail. Since all the theories are not wrong but non is by itself able to correctly justify everything, in order to be able to reach the answer we are looking for (i.e. the reason for social illness) we must take them all into account in order to compose the complex, multifaceted image of society, as multifaceted as humans themselves.
Each of the theories incriminates a different social class/ social group/ social phenomenon. That means not that one is wrong but that the incriminating element exists in all of society, that is in all the social classes and groups. If this is correct, which facts indicate it is since historically we see the same symptoms in all social groups even if they are isolated within society, then we will have to look for the source of social illness not in society’s organization but in its members.
The members of society are of course people, and we will see here how the smallest babushka is the one responsible for and affecting the biggest one, either positively or negatively. When we say smallest babushka we mean each individual wherever he/she is regarding social class, and when we say the biggest babushka we mean all of society which we have been analyzing up to now. That is, smallest babushka is the homeless person, the doctor living in suburb so-and-so, the ship owner owning an island and the emperor owning palaces in different conquered cities besides his/her basic one. A big babushka is the social group of all the homeless, all the doctors, all the ship owners and all the emperors/kings. It is a big babushka (bigger than the smallest) because all the ship owners together impose (theoretically) on one ship owner a way of life and a way of using/ handling his/her resources. That holds for all the individuals without exception, and that is why even the most ‘powerful’ man is a another smallest babushka which can at any moment be swept away by the immediate bigger social group it belongs to. (e.g. the Austro-Hungarian empress Elizabeth and her son Rudolf before her were murdered with the support of their social group, which was the nobility and other kids, because they were following a more liberal policy than what their social group wanted. The same happened with king Alexander of Greece who was murdered for the same reasons of going against his social group which was comprised by the high profile politicians/ plutocrats of the era and with the last nuclear czar family of Russia Romanov which broke several taboos and threatened with a tendency towards liberalism which was stifled by the rest of the members of this social group, such as the wider Romanov family and other nobles)
What can we therefore conclude based on the above regarding social illness and its source?
That which we can conclude since there are the same symptoms of imposition and persecution in all without exception the social groups in between their individuals, the social illness is not because of something nameless but because of a very specific type of person who acts in the same way regardless if he/she is very rich or a beggar.
Which are the parameters characterizing immediately the individual whose behavior maintains and aggravates the social illness?
It is important to understand that these people are not defective by birth or genetically different than the rest. They are individuals who have been schooled or are being schooled as we have described in previous articles: to seek the creation of Free Bondsmen because they have been saturated with the conviction that they are completely incompetent and weak and can’t survive on their own force, skills, intelligence, status and value and therefore they must convince all the rest of being inferior. If they manage that, the people responsible for the social illness feel that the actually strong and valuable will be blind/ weak because of insecurity and they will prefer to maintain the individuals-carriers of the illness instead of expelling them. We have described the entire exact procedure and motive behind it in our initial articles regarding Free Bondsmen and up to the article on the Shadow Puppet Theatre.
In essence, no matter which social system/ regime we try to apply, it will fail to eradicate the social illness if there are no defense mechanisms isolating and marginalizing these individuals-carriers of the illness with an end of expelling them. That would happen because in all the social systems/ regimes these individuals-carriers of the illness would try at all costs to twist the social rules in each system/regime so that they would impose the exact same condition: their maintenance and demand of their being worshipped/ satisfied in their insatiable demands by the rest of the social group. (This is very evident in all the social systems from kingship to communism where in record time the basic condition was crystallized into having a tiny group oppressing financially and politically/existentially the huge group of the rest of the people, simply changing the terminology and rank titles from system to system).
This behavior by these individuals is possible to change if we catch them in time and reverse the upbringing which has been done. These individuals are everywhere and serve as defense mechanism and resistance to the interest of the most obvious social criminals such as e.g. a dictator, a feudal lord or a big capital holder / owner of a multinational corporation. They are the individuals who will support the illing condition when all the rest are fighting to reverse it. That is why these individuals are highly dangerous and must be identified and kept at bay at all times or subject them to treatment (if they so wish it), because they are highly contagious and subversive with regard to social health (which includes family health, professional health as well as personal health). These individuals have some general/ universal behavioral patterns which we can keep in mind so we can diagnose them accurately, regardless of their education, cultivation, age and status:
1. these individuals find it fun or funny to deliberately humiliate the other person.
2. these individuals take pleasure in embarrassing the other person.
3. these individuals only act out behaviors 1 & 2 when they are certain the target is weaker than them or have guarantee that the target, though stronger than them, will not go against them/ react.
4. these individuals are indifferent to or take pleasure in/ get satisfaction in/ feel safe when/ they witness pain/ distress/ suffering/ psychololgical violence that either they cause or a third party does (animal, human, social group).
5. these individuals cannot ever allow third parties not to include them in situations/ acts/ successes/ profits/ gain despite the fact they are not entitled to it.
6. these individuals do not ever produce work unless they are rewarded with multiples of the worth of what work they produced and which often has been embezzled/ gotten from third parties.
7. these individuals never help, even when they are paid to give this help except when they are made to do it and even then they do the absolute minimum.
8. these individuals have no problem/ moral boundary and they are willing to do anything provided they are guaranteed immunity and secrecy.
9. these individuals systematically and at every moment they can to daily belittle and demean everyone around them with direct and indirect ways, from the indirect accusation that everyone around them is dumb and/or weak/ugly/ unwanted/ useless up to the official ‘diagnosis’ condemning people to the above categories if these individuals are ‘scientists’ or ‘professionals’ or ‘politicians’.
10. In order to impose themselves, these individuals gather around them an assortment of followers and bodyguards of all shapes and sizes, gather as many status symbols as they can and which matter to their own social group and/or all of the social groups, and demean everything that matches and which others have, camouflaging their own lack of worth/ skill/ power/ intelligence behind this parapet of jewelry, cars, houses/ property, a crowd of subordinates, servants and followers.
These individuals displaying the above symptoms are high risk for our selves, and our family members who are not displaying these symptoms and consequently for the social illness which causes all these phenomena of decay, from social crisis to assorted wars.
Showing posts with label interpersonal relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interpersonal relationships. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2008
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.
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
Security
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?
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).
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?
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).
Friday, March 14, 2008
A Look in the Mirror (Part 1)
The mirror is one of the most threatening and in the same time necessary elements within every house. Every day everyone of us goes close to the mirror, but instead of using it as we should, that is as a means for our own pleasure and functioning, we use it as a means of subjugation and masking of our own personality, most of the times.
How does that happen?
It is very rarely that we walk up to the mirror to please ourselves with what we will see. On the contrary, we go near it with stress, ready to locate even by a magnifying glass the ‘bad’, ‘incorrigible’, ‘unacceptable’ characteristics on us which take away our right to feel okay, to walk in the street with happiness and self confidence. They certainly also do not allow us to assign any value to all the very good characteristics and traits which we have. In this way, the mirror becomes a means of control and restraint of human distinctiveness and inimitability and fully facilitates the creation of Free Bondsmen.
But shouldn’t we try to be nice and proper?
By all means we should strive every day to improve ourselves so we can feel stronger, more in control and more eager for life (aside the clichéd activities projected through the mass media such as a continual exhausting march from shopping mall to shopping mall , night club to night club and romantic/sexual relationship to romantic/sexual relationship) and its activities than before. If we don’t feel that but on the contrary as rule and in general we sense stress, doubt for ourselves and our capacities, disappointment in ourselves, embarrassment for our very existence and our traits/characteristics, at a disadvantage and underperforming then we are not achieving progress with the method we are following but conversely we cause a depression of our personality and our capacities and instead of truly living we carry on in a state of sedation.
And how does the mirror cause us that?
As we have already said, we go near the mirror not to look with pleasure upon what it will show us, so that we will draw energy in order to develop what we see even more, but with fear and aversion or anxiety and compulsion in order to camouflage, hide, ‘distract from’ parts of ourselves which are objectively necessary and functional and which are rejectable not by any natural process but by a completely fabricated and constructed social order to which in theory, like any Free Bondsman, we have a choice whether to conform but in essence we are bullied and blackmailed into doing so.
In this manner, the mirror makes us feel that we are constantly under scrutiny or judgment and usually with criteria which have nothing to do with nature or health or the good standing of our body and psyche and prevents us from calming down in order to experience and get to know ourselves without fearing whether this self will be ‘fitting’ or ‘matching’, as if the individuals of a society are obliged to be carbon copies of each other in order for that society to be functional or in order for the individuals to prove they belong to it.
But doesn’t society need fitting and matching people in order to function?
In order to answer correctly to this question, just like any question anyone can ask us, we must first have fully and clearly defined what we mean by ‘fitting’ and ‘matching’ and to what we must be ‘fitting’ and ‘matching’ and with what sort of goal in mind.
If we define as the function of society its healthy development so that it becomes less and less infringing and abusive on nature, more and more supportive to its members (that is in terms of benefits and support to the individual and his/her needs personally and directly, not in general) and less and less demanding from its members (in terms of procedures and support of the governmental structure such as taxes, contributions, etc) then the ‘fitting’ and ‘matching’ person is the one who does not care whether society will accept and validate his/her existence based on the camouflage uniform he/she is wearing and which codes for subjugation to specific social groups within society.
This matching and fitting person is the person who worries and sees to the solution of problems. This person gains pleasure from solving problems so that his/her environment consists of happy people who feel free to speak openly and candidly, think freely, express their thoughts, desires and ambitions freely without fearing that they will be met with hostility, reservation or even ridicule. This person is interested in bringing forth results and in order to do it is not afraid to work with anything, regardless of social status, and is not afraid to defend the logical and ethical trajectories which exist exactly in order to ensure the correct, certain and swift development of society to levels that often the mass media tag utopian.
If, however, we define as the function of society the perpetuation and maintenance of a diseased situation within which bounteously resources of all kinds (environmental, human, intelligence, ingenuity, toil, time and money) are lost, stolen or squandered so that the parasitic survival of a small number of families across the globe in ensured at the expense of innumerable others and which innumerable other families are the ones responsible for the survival we have achieved up to now as human species, then for sure the ‘matching’ and ‘fitting’ man changes. The person we described above is highly incompatible with this here society. For this here society, ‘matching’ and ‘fitting’ is the concentration camp inmate: he/she must look alike with his fellow inmates at all costs, wear a specific uniform under pain of punishment, say or do specific words and actions prepared and predesigned for him/her by third parties, and of course be so scared that he/she does not actively think saying phrases such as ‘I won’t get into that mindset’, ‘I wont go down that road’, ‘I won’t open that can of worms’, ‘we won’t be the ones to discuss/decide/evaluate/judge this’ etc.
For sure, the society we just described which is parasitic and fights just like cancer the very organism sustaining it, is not viable at all and has an expiry date in contrast to the first one which is both viable and supportive towards its environment so that its survival is ensured.
If we go near our mirror with happiness in order to look upon who we are and with a motive to elevate and not hide our personality and inimitability as individuals attuned to nature, logic and as a result to healthy ethics that is derived from it, then we are individuals who belong and fit to that first society which is viable and will survive to go on.
If we go near our mirror with stress and fear and aversion ready to list what we don’t like but without much motivation or faith that what we do not like can change and look over ourselves under a state in which cadets find themselves before standing in line for inspection in the army, then we are individuals belonging and matching to the other society which is diseased and which has an expiry date and which does enforce on us an expiry date as well which comes far earlier than our death date.
And how do we now apply this look in the mirror to an international level with nations in the place of individuals?
As we have mentioned before in the analogy with the babushkas in a previous article, that which happens on a personal level is exactly what happens in every other level, with the difference being only in scope and measure. The society of nations is of course no exception. Let’s continue, therefore, in order to illustrate as much our example from last time and let’s see how as a nation the Greeks (and not just the Greeks but every nation which is real and not a fabrication) are members of the first type of functioning of the viable society and are being assaulted with all kinds of manipulations (as we demonstrated in the last article) in order to be transformed into the second kind of functioning belonging to the diseased society type and which leads to disaster.
In order to be able to demonstrate this, the first which we must do is to define (or answer) who the true Hellene/Greek is and how we can tell him/her from the others. (The same goes for any other nationality and not just the Greeks which we are using as an example)
The first logical level of the definition is that Greek is the one who belongs to and represents the Greek Nation.
But what do we mean by ‘belongs to and represents’?
The one who belongs to a group protects it, cultivates it, elevates it and promotes it with the love with which someone presents a work which has been given to him/her with trust and which he/she has taken up and continued so that the next generations belonging to this group are strong, happy and proud.
The one who represents a group is one who belongs to it already and who, with his/her behavior, thoughts, work, actions, leisure and decisions upholds and protects the ideological, moral and everyday principles through which this group is defined.
ONE DOES NOT BELONG TO A GROUP WHEN HE/SHE DIVIDES IT, SUBVERTS IT, ACCUSES IT, DOWNRATES IT, DAMAGES IT, WEAKENS IT OR WEARS IT DOWN AT ANY LEVEL OR WITH ANY EXCUSE, MEANS OR END.
ONE DOES NOT REPRESENT A GROUP WHEN HE/SHE EMBARRASSES IT, DOES NOT DEFEND IT, HAS THE INTERESTS OF OTHER GROUPS AS PRIORITY OVER THOSE OF THE GROUP, GIVES LEVERAGE TO OTHER GROUPS TO ATTACK, SLANDERS THE GROUP OR ALLOWS OTHERS TO SLANDER IT, ALLOW FOR LIBEL AND MUD SLINGING.
Therefore, a Hellene/Greek is the one who protects, cultivates, elevates, promotes with love the Hellenic/Greek identity as it has been forged without breaking the Hellenic/Greek moral and behavioral rules and upkeeps and protects the Hellenic/Greek ideology and moral values. The Greek goes up to the ethnic mirror and is happy, gazing upon the virtues, achievements and triumphs in history and everyday and with enthusiasm and happiness seeks his/her improvement and and not his/her alteration so that he/she will ‘fit’ or be ‘matching’ with a group which has already proven that it is not viable or functional.
ONE IS NOT A GREEK who embarrasses Greece inside and outside its borders through subversive policies which project a fabricated weakness and servility to the Greek National group (and any other National group which is true and not constructed since one of the basic forces which creates a group is the sensation of pride and ability of existence which its members have when they declare themselves as members). One is not a Greek who does not defend the Greek group outside but also in terms of its internal needs, the one who gives priority to the claims or needs of another group above the Greek one (from an ethnic to a financial level), and certainly he/she is not Greek and certainly one is not Greek who defames the Greeks, their actions and their vested rights on all levels (from vested grounds to vested milestones of a socioeconomic welfare and security) and allows others to defame, slander and calumniate the abilities, capacities, identity, way of life, philosophy, achievements and pursuits of the Greeks.
Could we have some examples?
There are innumerable contemporary examples from which we will present some in the following two weeks.
The principles presented do not pertain only the National group by the name of Hellene/Greek but for every one which has been created spontaneously and not been constructed by third parties/forces. If you belong to one of the spontaneously created Nations I would be happy to hear from you.
How does that happen?
It is very rarely that we walk up to the mirror to please ourselves with what we will see. On the contrary, we go near it with stress, ready to locate even by a magnifying glass the ‘bad’, ‘incorrigible’, ‘unacceptable’ characteristics on us which take away our right to feel okay, to walk in the street with happiness and self confidence. They certainly also do not allow us to assign any value to all the very good characteristics and traits which we have. In this way, the mirror becomes a means of control and restraint of human distinctiveness and inimitability and fully facilitates the creation of Free Bondsmen.
But shouldn’t we try to be nice and proper?
By all means we should strive every day to improve ourselves so we can feel stronger, more in control and more eager for life (aside the clichéd activities projected through the mass media such as a continual exhausting march from shopping mall to shopping mall , night club to night club and romantic/sexual relationship to romantic/sexual relationship) and its activities than before. If we don’t feel that but on the contrary as rule and in general we sense stress, doubt for ourselves and our capacities, disappointment in ourselves, embarrassment for our very existence and our traits/characteristics, at a disadvantage and underperforming then we are not achieving progress with the method we are following but conversely we cause a depression of our personality and our capacities and instead of truly living we carry on in a state of sedation.
And how does the mirror cause us that?
As we have already said, we go near the mirror not to look with pleasure upon what it will show us, so that we will draw energy in order to develop what we see even more, but with fear and aversion or anxiety and compulsion in order to camouflage, hide, ‘distract from’ parts of ourselves which are objectively necessary and functional and which are rejectable not by any natural process but by a completely fabricated and constructed social order to which in theory, like any Free Bondsman, we have a choice whether to conform but in essence we are bullied and blackmailed into doing so.
In this manner, the mirror makes us feel that we are constantly under scrutiny or judgment and usually with criteria which have nothing to do with nature or health or the good standing of our body and psyche and prevents us from calming down in order to experience and get to know ourselves without fearing whether this self will be ‘fitting’ or ‘matching’, as if the individuals of a society are obliged to be carbon copies of each other in order for that society to be functional or in order for the individuals to prove they belong to it.
But doesn’t society need fitting and matching people in order to function?
In order to answer correctly to this question, just like any question anyone can ask us, we must first have fully and clearly defined what we mean by ‘fitting’ and ‘matching’ and to what we must be ‘fitting’ and ‘matching’ and with what sort of goal in mind.
If we define as the function of society its healthy development so that it becomes less and less infringing and abusive on nature, more and more supportive to its members (that is in terms of benefits and support to the individual and his/her needs personally and directly, not in general) and less and less demanding from its members (in terms of procedures and support of the governmental structure such as taxes, contributions, etc) then the ‘fitting’ and ‘matching’ person is the one who does not care whether society will accept and validate his/her existence based on the camouflage uniform he/she is wearing and which codes for subjugation to specific social groups within society.
This matching and fitting person is the person who worries and sees to the solution of problems. This person gains pleasure from solving problems so that his/her environment consists of happy people who feel free to speak openly and candidly, think freely, express their thoughts, desires and ambitions freely without fearing that they will be met with hostility, reservation or even ridicule. This person is interested in bringing forth results and in order to do it is not afraid to work with anything, regardless of social status, and is not afraid to defend the logical and ethical trajectories which exist exactly in order to ensure the correct, certain and swift development of society to levels that often the mass media tag utopian.
If, however, we define as the function of society the perpetuation and maintenance of a diseased situation within which bounteously resources of all kinds (environmental, human, intelligence, ingenuity, toil, time and money) are lost, stolen or squandered so that the parasitic survival of a small number of families across the globe in ensured at the expense of innumerable others and which innumerable other families are the ones responsible for the survival we have achieved up to now as human species, then for sure the ‘matching’ and ‘fitting’ man changes. The person we described above is highly incompatible with this here society. For this here society, ‘matching’ and ‘fitting’ is the concentration camp inmate: he/she must look alike with his fellow inmates at all costs, wear a specific uniform under pain of punishment, say or do specific words and actions prepared and predesigned for him/her by third parties, and of course be so scared that he/she does not actively think saying phrases such as ‘I won’t get into that mindset’, ‘I wont go down that road’, ‘I won’t open that can of worms’, ‘we won’t be the ones to discuss/decide/evaluate/judge this’ etc.
For sure, the society we just described which is parasitic and fights just like cancer the very organism sustaining it, is not viable at all and has an expiry date in contrast to the first one which is both viable and supportive towards its environment so that its survival is ensured.
If we go near our mirror with happiness in order to look upon who we are and with a motive to elevate and not hide our personality and inimitability as individuals attuned to nature, logic and as a result to healthy ethics that is derived from it, then we are individuals who belong and fit to that first society which is viable and will survive to go on.
If we go near our mirror with stress and fear and aversion ready to list what we don’t like but without much motivation or faith that what we do not like can change and look over ourselves under a state in which cadets find themselves before standing in line for inspection in the army, then we are individuals belonging and matching to the other society which is diseased and which has an expiry date and which does enforce on us an expiry date as well which comes far earlier than our death date.
And how do we now apply this look in the mirror to an international level with nations in the place of individuals?
As we have mentioned before in the analogy with the babushkas in a previous article, that which happens on a personal level is exactly what happens in every other level, with the difference being only in scope and measure. The society of nations is of course no exception. Let’s continue, therefore, in order to illustrate as much our example from last time and let’s see how as a nation the Greeks (and not just the Greeks but every nation which is real and not a fabrication) are members of the first type of functioning of the viable society and are being assaulted with all kinds of manipulations (as we demonstrated in the last article) in order to be transformed into the second kind of functioning belonging to the diseased society type and which leads to disaster.
In order to be able to demonstrate this, the first which we must do is to define (or answer) who the true Hellene/Greek is and how we can tell him/her from the others. (The same goes for any other nationality and not just the Greeks which we are using as an example)
The first logical level of the definition is that Greek is the one who belongs to and represents the Greek Nation.
But what do we mean by ‘belongs to and represents’?
The one who belongs to a group protects it, cultivates it, elevates it and promotes it with the love with which someone presents a work which has been given to him/her with trust and which he/she has taken up and continued so that the next generations belonging to this group are strong, happy and proud.
The one who represents a group is one who belongs to it already and who, with his/her behavior, thoughts, work, actions, leisure and decisions upholds and protects the ideological, moral and everyday principles through which this group is defined.
ONE DOES NOT BELONG TO A GROUP WHEN HE/SHE DIVIDES IT, SUBVERTS IT, ACCUSES IT, DOWNRATES IT, DAMAGES IT, WEAKENS IT OR WEARS IT DOWN AT ANY LEVEL OR WITH ANY EXCUSE, MEANS OR END.
ONE DOES NOT REPRESENT A GROUP WHEN HE/SHE EMBARRASSES IT, DOES NOT DEFEND IT, HAS THE INTERESTS OF OTHER GROUPS AS PRIORITY OVER THOSE OF THE GROUP, GIVES LEVERAGE TO OTHER GROUPS TO ATTACK, SLANDERS THE GROUP OR ALLOWS OTHERS TO SLANDER IT, ALLOW FOR LIBEL AND MUD SLINGING.
Therefore, a Hellene/Greek is the one who protects, cultivates, elevates, promotes with love the Hellenic/Greek identity as it has been forged without breaking the Hellenic/Greek moral and behavioral rules and upkeeps and protects the Hellenic/Greek ideology and moral values. The Greek goes up to the ethnic mirror and is happy, gazing upon the virtues, achievements and triumphs in history and everyday and with enthusiasm and happiness seeks his/her improvement and and not his/her alteration so that he/she will ‘fit’ or be ‘matching’ with a group which has already proven that it is not viable or functional.
ONE IS NOT A GREEK who embarrasses Greece inside and outside its borders through subversive policies which project a fabricated weakness and servility to the Greek National group (and any other National group which is true and not constructed since one of the basic forces which creates a group is the sensation of pride and ability of existence which its members have when they declare themselves as members). One is not a Greek who does not defend the Greek group outside but also in terms of its internal needs, the one who gives priority to the claims or needs of another group above the Greek one (from an ethnic to a financial level), and certainly he/she is not Greek and certainly one is not Greek who defames the Greeks, their actions and their vested rights on all levels (from vested grounds to vested milestones of a socioeconomic welfare and security) and allows others to defame, slander and calumniate the abilities, capacities, identity, way of life, philosophy, achievements and pursuits of the Greeks.
Could we have some examples?
There are innumerable contemporary examples from which we will present some in the following two weeks.
The principles presented do not pertain only the National group by the name of Hellene/Greek but for every one which has been created spontaneously and not been constructed by third parties/forces. If you belong to one of the spontaneously created Nations I would be happy to hear from you.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Shadow Puppet Theatre
We have already demonstrated that in all the breadth and width of human society and the interpersonal relationships of people there is a ‘give and take’ which in most cases, instead of being constructive and of promoting the co-existence and co-development of both sides so that the outcome would be far greater than anyone can imagine, it is competitive: that is to say, it is a continual battle of imposition and enforcement by one side against the other.
So?
So, in the majority of interactions (from a simple conversation on the phone to a famous trial to a typical visit to be informed about students’ performance at school) there is a ‘competition’ about who ‘will come out on top/ will score/ will shut up/ show the proper place/ will trump’ the other person.
What does this mean?
This means that we willingly deprive ourselves from many things we could have gained while in the same time we burden ourselves with negative feelings which we could have avoided as well as entire ideas or points of view about the cosmos which take ground in our conscience absolutely and without discussion.
How do we manage that?
Two contestants are not the same as two cooperators. The contestants have very different goals and motives than the cooperators:
A. The contestants seek for one to win over the other regardless of the achievement or not of a goal that is useful to the general public.
B. That means they seek to prove that their point of view is in every way superior to that of the other contestant.
C. That means that in order to win they will have to deny or shoot down every single one of the opponent’s views regardless of whether they should or shouldn’t, or they will lose.
D. That means that the process is not a process of advancement and improvement for either of the two contestants but one that is destructive for at least one of the two if not both, which is usually the case.
On the contrary,
A. The cooperators both seek to prevail/ win/ achieve/ conquer a goal which is generally useful to a particular group.
B. That means that they are ‘open’ and seek to enrich or finetune their views so that they will better and more effectively reach their goal.
C. That means they gladly accept, seek and incorporate all the sides and angles which with the correct composition and evaluation create the point of view or the method which will bring about the achievement of their target regardless of whether these sides and angles come from their own thought process or that of their cooperator.
D. That means that the process is one of advancement and improvement for both the cooperators and it additionally offers chances for improvement and progress for each one of the cooperators individually. Also, the gain for each one on a social, personal and existential level is in great multiples than the uncertain gain one would have through a process of antagonism and undermining of the other.
Therefore, when we force ourselves but also other people to continually antagonize and compete with each other in order to discover who is the winner- free bondsman and who is the loser-subjugated free bondsman, what we certainly induce is the perfect absence of any type of progress and improvement of individuals and certainly (as we have already demonstrated with the babushkas) the complete absence of progress, development and improvement of society and social environment.
Additionally, as we see from our everyday interactions with other people that with antagonism and competition (relationships that ‘don’t work/ don’t flow/ don’t hit off well/ don’t do it/ lead nowhere/ suffocate/ stifle’ as well as a sensation of helplessness and weakness that ‘there’s nothing to be done/ that’s what everyone does/ what can one do?/ nothing can be corrected/ the way we’ve fallen…/ it’s no use’) we induce fully the mathematical progression towards degeneration and spoiling of our person as well as the social whole.
Yes, but emulation/competition helps progress, doesn’t it?
No, it doesn’t. Not because the basic idea and concept is wrong, but because just like in so many things it is interpreted and applied in almost complete disaccordance between the idea and its application.
What do we mean by this?
Let’s analyze what we mean by beginning as we should always begin: with the definition of ideas, that is to say précising what this ‘emulation’ means and what it doesn’t.
Emulation: “Ambition to equal or excel.
Effort to equal or surpass another”[1]
To emulate: “Strive to equal or match, especially by imitating;
Compete with successfully; approach or reach equality with”[2]
We therefore see here that ‘emulation’ as a term has two facets which are not actually clear or in complete accordance between them:
If I strive to be your equal or surpass someone, I definitely am not or do not consider myself equivalent to that person.
If I try to compete with someone, not only am I not interested in my improvement or his/her own, but on the contrary, I am interested in beating him/her in all counts, exactly like the soldier during war: my purpose is victory regardless of my quality or that of my opponent.
Therefore I will do anything to achieve victory without any thought on ideology or means or even if this actually harms, undermines and negates my real capacities. This fact is greatly illustrated in the more and more reported cases of athletes who are arrested or confess to using substances or other tactics which will give them a momentary edge in their sport without being interested whether they would have truly conquered the level of skill and ability which is symbolized by the medal they are pandering to. There are also swingeing cases of champion athletes who have suffered great problems of health (bodily, psychological and social) after their withdrawal from the sport in which they were competing.
Both occurrences prove the great size of the destruction by competition and ‘emulation’ induced in all levels.
This is the one side of emulation which is applied but never accurately spelled out.
The other side of emulation refers to how all sides are equal (or potentially so) and are governed by a mutual need for some improvement through competition, but this improvement (in terms of its kind and level) almost always is vague. However, through competition or emulation we cannot have either equality or individual or group improvement with actual gain on all levels, but on the contrary we have the onset of complete disaster as we saw above. On the contrary, we saw that in order to have equality and group improvement on all levels cooperation must exist.
Yes, but through emulation several breakthroughs were achieved. Isn’t that what we are told?
This is not actually true but actually a distortion of a basic truth about all breakthroughs (positive and negative alike) that have been achieved throughout humanity’s course.
A breakthrough is the result of two basic ingredients: need and experimentation. A need of either the individual for answers/solutions or of the group’s for survival. Experimentation for the satisfaction of this need by at least one and most of the times several more individuals who try out several approaches towards the goal, learn what they should pay attention to, avoid, correct and/or improve and so are led to the breakthrough which affects positively or negatively the entire social group.
There never was found a breakthrough or solution through a competition the goal of which was to evaluate, spotlight and reward one sole individual but did not have any other purpose.
Yes, but there are competitions of innovations or talent which do bring forth breakthroughs or talents.
This is inaccurate as well and the misinterpretation is mainly due to the tendency there exist not to use exactitude when we express ourselves and end up using one term for several similar but profoundly different concepts. These types of competitions which do bring forth breakthroughs of talents are not competitions but the greek word ‘συναγωνισμός’ which can best be described in English as ‘co-run’. What do we mean by that?
A target is presented to all participants with specific parameters and full freedom is allowed in the method and way of achieving this target. Cooperation and exchange of ideas is possible and in the most successful co-runs it is a given. If this does not exist and what we are measuring is not the achievement of the target but the individual itself in an evaluation context, then the competition is truly a competition which, just like we showed above never yields a breakthrough or a talent either objectively or in its full expression ( either the ‘talent’ is nothing but a result of techniques meant to impress and not actually there or, when there is actual talent, it is canalized and hemmed in until it is stifled by the social and financial pressuring emanating from the competition). Let’s just consider how much success or gain is to be had from competitions like Eurovision, American Idol or even the Olympic Games, beauty pageants and soccer/football/etc: no objective gain or success is to be had either for the spectators or even for the contestants since many times the material gain (because there actually is no other) is given to a contestant not because of his/her skill or ability or talent but because of the misleading/limiting criteria and the subjective opinion of one or more judges.
In future articles we will analyze exactly how something which can seem objective in essence is subjective and fabricated.
So, who benefits from the competitions?
The one who first comes to mind is the winner of the competition. In competitions like the ones we mentioned the winner wins glory, fame, financial gain, positions coveted in society, etc.
But is it true that the winner wins these?
In reality the winner doesn’t win all these things because they are not the natural and logical result of his/her achievement (e.g. to run fast is not in essence an exploitable ability by the person who has it, that same speedy runner, in a way that will ensure his freedom, independence and autonomy in today’s society) but a non-controllable by the competitor reward which is controlled by other agents and by other criteria which have nothing to do with the winner’s talent or competence (that is to say, the competitor cannot use his/her achievement in order to gain or earn what he/she is given beyond the limits and stipulations of the specific contest alone, and so therefore he/she cannot use their achievement to survive if that is not allowed by others.
Consequently he/she is forever in a dependent and uncertain position which he/she may or may not keep even if he/she retains or even improves the achievement if others do not want it to be so). In this manner the winner does not feel the assurance and certainty of a winner who, having achieved this goal moves on to higher ones belonging to more advanced developmental levels, but instead senses the uncertainty and insecurity of a person who is sitting on an unstable chair upon a time bomb- since his/her win is nullified with the obligation and pressure put upon him/her.
Who is really the one who has control?
Certainly it has already been hinted at that the one who has control is the one who is not competing. The one who is not competing is not the one who watches passively and without interacting with contest parameters which are specific and objective. That is just the spectator who cannot but be a receiver of a situation with which it is irrelevant whether the spectator agrees or disagrees and whose opinion is never asked as a true lever affecting the competition. The spectator is hurt by the competition as much as the contestant is because he/she is given the false and misleading message that they have no effect or influence in his/her environment (social, personal, state, work) and he/she is being taught to take blows and rape of his/her personality and his/her opinion without him/her trying at all for a substantial reaction.
The spectator just like the competitor learn through the contest to be free bondsmen (since they believe they were the ones they chose freely to do what they do and react the way they react) and instead of being full personalities with multiple facets they limit themselves to being two-dimensional and shallow expressions of themselves just like the figures of a Shadow Puppet Theatre.
In the same token, the same occurs in the case of the judges of the competition who are similar to the cloth against which the figures of the Shadow Puppet Theatre press in order to be visible: They aren’t free to judge the contestants as they would like but just like every free bondsman is free to judge as they are enforced to, regardless of their opinion (much is the historical evidence where judges were forbidden to yield a winner because for political, financial or other reasons it was necessary to pick another winner, more accommodating to the promotional campaign of those truly controlling the competition). Otherwise, their own position and reputation is subject to and controlled by others who truly control the show.
So who does truly control and benefit from competitions?
In our Shadow Puppet Theatre, that would be the Shadow Puppeteer. He/she is the one who controls all the figures and stretches the cloth they press on as he/she likes but cannot be seen nor does he/she present him/herself, though his/her voice is heard, camouflaged as the voice of the figures he/she is holding.
How can we discover who the Puppeteer of the several different competitions is?
Through asking some very simple questions which we will list next time.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Who Benefits from the Crime?
All the values and ideas permeating our lives are interconnected in meaning and relationships. Therefore the secret in understanding truly and on our own, without the need for interpretation by an ‘expert’ who offers to give as decrees some answers but refrains from offering the liberating and truly enlightening logical process through which he/she arrived at that decree, is to look with our own highly able logic in order to find the manner of connection of the ideas and situations in our everyday life and beyond.
What do we mean by that?
We arm ourselves with a system of questions to which we do not accept answers that are not to the point, but of the variety: “ that’s the way it is, that’s what everyone does, etc”. We also do not accept answers which are inappropriate and off topic and usually are of the variety: “you are cruel, you are insolent, you are stupid, how dare you, do you think that’s the way to speak to me, etc etc”.
We arm ourselves with courage, which means we find our answers to the questions without being afraid of what this answer will be or will show about society, our family, our life, for two reasons:
a) whatever it is, since it is part of the to the point answer to our question, it was pre-existing in our lives and was affecting us anyway. Therefore it is something that should not threaten or scare us because we have already been coping with it and have decidedly survived it under the worse of conditions since we had not even been aware of it at all. Therefore now we are given the chance to do anything we want concerning what we just realized much better and with less energy than before, since we now know what it is all about.
b) our worth is not at risk in any way with the fact that we can see our to the point answers to our questions but on the contrary it is augmented because we display advanced intelligence and adult thought.
We must keep in mind that all this process DOES NOT INCREASE OUR RESPONSIBILITY to ourselves and our environment since from the moment we assume the status of the adult individual, all the responsibilities connected with being an adult become ours whether we have realized them or not. Therefore it is to our interest to know the full scope and limits of our responsibilities and our rights so that nobody will be able to assign to us responsibilities that are not ours and steal from us rights we have or rights that belong to those having assumed certain responsibilities.
That is, with the process of finding out and determining true values, responsibilities, rights as well as situations (as they really are, as they are presented to be and as they really should be) WE HAVE ONLY GAIN AND NO LOSS. One would say that this process is one of the few chances/bargains that exist in the world and of course there will be many who will fight tooth and nail and to the end to stop us from acquiring it, and certainly from stop being Free Bondsmen and becoming instantly Free Individuals.
But finally, who are those who want us to be Free Bondsmen?
Here, many would expect an answer of a political nature. However politics is a plateau where, in order to be able to play, we must have completed and perfected our understanding of the plateau of our everyday life and of the people with who we coexist and interact directly. We will see that with mathematical precision the abstract equation of the different forces within politics exists and is applied repeatedly and consistently within our social circles and our family.
What does this mean?
It means that in order for us to understand politics we must first understand the forces and the motives which guide and shape the behavior of the people who consist our family, friends, relatives, acquaintances, colleagues.
The moment that we truly grasp that, is the moment we will be able to read politics like an open book and in the same time see different shapes and sizes of Free Bondsmen.
But who would want a Free Bondsman?
If I were to give the answer right away, I would also be an expert who gives a bit of a spark but does not give the lighter to those who need constant fire. Therefore for that, we will begin from the lighter and you will be the ones to light your flame as befits Free Individuals.
In order to find out who would want a Free Bondsman, we must ask the question that logic demands: “who would benefit from one?”
Why is this the logical question?
Because nobody invests this much strategy, energy and persistence in something that will not yield at least triple his investment. The one who does not need a Free Bondsman, does not concern him/herself by forcing someone else to become one.
Since the beginning of time, one wanted a slave or a subject so that he/she could assign to that slave or subject all the activities requiring effort, courage, power, intelligence, skill, ingenuity, worthiness so that this one would exploit what the slave or the subject would create and produce.
Such a person either believes he/she is lacking in all the above qualities in comparison to the person he/she wants to subjugate or he/she does not want to invest his/her own power and qualities in order to have the corresponding results and gains which, however he/she demands anyway, and under no circumstance wants the slave/subject to realize and therefore reap the results and gains the slave/subject would possess were he/she a Free Individual.
Therefore in order to find who benefits from the existence of Free Bondsmen we would have to look to our environment in order to find persons who:
- declare an unfounded, irrational weakness and in the same time forcefully demand the aid of specific others.
- with their emotional state they enforce their will and make others capitulate with the fear they inspire of their possible worsening of whatever condition (e.g. “oh no! if ….. learns of it, what will we do?/ how can I say that when all hell will break loose/ what if he/she dies of the emotional shock?/ what if he/she becomes sick?/ etc”)
- threaten constantly and with little prompting that they will leave, move, abandon, die, stop financing, call upon god to punish/burn on the spot the environment or a specific person.
- they proclaim from the house-top their correct judgment, immaculate behavior, ethics, kindness, religiosity, virtue, cleverness, ability, skill, beauty, etc even if there is proof to the contrary and in the case someone points out that fact they engage in extreme levels of attack and histrionics / manic behaviors which frighten and force the others to say things of this sort: “let him/her be/ that’s the way he/she is/ don’t pay attention to him/her/ you must tolerate/put up with him/her, etc” .
- they proclaim from the house-top their extreme ability and in the same time their extreme misfortune that situations/ luck/ God prevented/forbade their social/ familial/ professional/ personal success while in the same time they accuse, envy and reject all other people saying that compared to their worth, these other people don’t deserve what they have. With this approach they enforce themselves on the people for whom they “have sacrificed themselves/ stuck out their necks for/ love to pieces/ etc” and they do not tolerate actual objections with the accusation : “you are an ingrate, you are ungrateful”.
- they also treat very warmly every person they envy when these people are present and in general are very absolutist, giving decrees and judgments to everyone in their environment while exempting themselves with phrases of this sort: “ it’s not the same thing with me/ I have nothing to do with this/ it’s not about what I do” and in addition coupling it with an overt or covert condemning remark about the intelligence or the ethics of the person who very intelligently pointed out the use of dual standards.
With these guidelines look around your environment without fear and see who benefits from the crime.
Do not be afraid if you find benefiting people who are very close to you and definitely do not fear if you suspect that some or any of the above characteristics describe you. Just the fact that you suspect it or see it in those around you presents you with a choice which you did not have before:
How do I face and control the situations that affect me knowingly and after my own personal choice of being a Free Individual or not?
The answer of which we will examine in the next post.
Questions, comments and need for communication is always welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
