I found myself thinking about the meaning of words as I often do. I never have identified as a "Liberal" though I've been an advocate for what that word actually means. I have identified as a "Libertarian" in the past though these days I do not. When I did I'd refer to myself as "Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative". There is no longer a simple box I try to push myself into. I roam freely where my mind and thoughts lead me. I am individual who freely associates with other people and often groups up (for however long I decide) towards mutually beneficial goals. I don't have an interest in controlling, manipulating, or otherwise gaining power over others. I do not view how much financial wealth I have as some sort of scoreboard where I need to keep trying to add my initials and say "I am number one, or I am number five thousand". I have no interest in that.
(Image Source: quotefancy.com)
Today as I was thinking about words I found my path turning in a direction that consists of some new thoughts for me.
It began like I said with thinking about "Liberal". It was inspired by the typical seeing someone in a comment, article, etc. refer to the bad guys with the bad ideas as "Liberals". By the meaning of the word I don't think the people they were referring to were Liberals at all. Just like I don't think people who stop practicing the scientific method should still be able to call themselves "Scientists".
Then the new idea happened. "Were these not-Liberals at one point Liberals?" Liberals push for tolerance and acceptance of people in general provided they are not harming other people.
What happens when they see intolerance? They do what any of us do. They fight in whatever ways they can come up with. Some with more self determination, and others seek people they subconsciously identify as leaders to lead them in the fight. They fight to stomp out intolerance...
(Image Source: redbubble.com)
As simple as that sounds I suspect those of you reading this would not have a problem if that was all it was and where it stopped.
What happens when they are victorious?
What happens when that victory has taken most of a lifetime or more?
The battle is won. They defeated that intolerance. They have been warring most of their lives. They are a warrior against the "intolerance of X". Yet their enemy is defeated. The target overcome.
Who are they now?
What do they know how to do?
They know how to attack those they identified as intolerant. Their skillset is no longer needed. They are adrift.
How can they find meaning?
Wait... over there... across that void, across the room, across the street, across the sea, across the internet through the screen... could it be? Is that some other form of intolerance?
It might be just a glimmer. Yet it could blossom into a huge intolerance. It is definitely a thought pattern that MIGHT become intolerant and spread like cancer.
I should use my skills...
"I am the Liberal, hear me roar, I seek out and fight intolerance wherever it dare raise it's ugly head!"
What are you?
A warrior? A one trick pony? An automaton? A heat seeking missile? Just a hammer?
Just a hammer seeking out nails wherever something looks like it might resemble a nail...
(Image Source: pinterest.com)
WHACK, WHACK, WHACK...
Do you hear a voice saying "Wait, stop..." nah it is gone now smashed beneath another whack of justice.
Are you just whacking off?
Is there anything left to you beyond the fight? Is your identity defined by the battle? Do you know anything else?
Are you appeased simply because you've realized that by labeling anything you can justify in some insane way to be the enemy you can continually pound on it like it is the nail, and you the hammer?
Does that fit the original intent of the word "Liberal" or have you sown the seeds for the destruction of that word?
Is that perhaps why so many people use the label "Liberal" in a derogatory fashion these days and when they do so their vision of a liberal in their minds is that of one of the least tolerant human beings on the planet?
Could it be because the actions of the "so-called Liberal" no longer even closely resemble what the word actually means?
The social/cultural Marxists rejoice though because another word has been hijacked, corrupted, and thus mental territory ceded.
Do you think this only applies to "Liberals"?
Have you considered what the victory condition is for your own personal wars? Has the war become your identity? If you are victorious what will you do then? Do you know how to do anything else? Do you have any idea how to live in a world where the enemies you perceive are no longer a threat?
Or will you be uncomfortable in such a world and simply seek out new enemies?
In a world where your goal is to find enemies and defeat them how can there ever be peace? Does that not seem like a path leading only to destruction?
(Image Source: survivallife.com)
I think it is important that we fight, yet we be very vigilant about preventing the fight from becoming our identity.
We must have a plan for what we will do after fighting that does not simply require us to seek reasons for another fight.
It is a cycle that seems very present. Yet we must break it.
(Image Source: superherojacked.com)
Mirror mirror on the wall... am I a good thinking person, or am I running on auto-pilot?
EDIT: I do know a seed that lead me to this. I was rewatching the Vikings series on the History Channel. I actually never finished it. At one point King Harald, Ivar, Vitsig, and Eric are sitting in a hall. Ivar has just watched people drinking and not seeming to have purpose and out fighting among themselves and becoming increasingly lazy. He tells these other leaders that there seems to be something to the fact that they are Vikings. What happens when a Viking that has been raised to war, and seek Valhalla is no longer going out raiding? They turn upon themselves to fill that void of purpose. What was their decision? To organize another big raid so the people would not longer "devolve" due to having no outlet for their way of life. Rather than changing their way of life they gave into that long practiced idea and nature and had to seek out a new enemy for they realized their existence was chaos without a target to raid.
That exchange is without a doubt something that gave me a nudge to thinking in this new direction.
Damn, man, such a strong message right here. I've been thinking in these lines too even recently. I like the fact you added that it not only applies to Liberals. Many of us are very critical and are always quick to war and attack things we don't agree with, the speed and aggression sometimes leaves me wondering if the issue warrants all that rage or is it that we just love to war and would seize any opportunity?
This is really becoming a trend and peace should continue to be preached like this, we are roughing things up when all that is required is a simple nudge in the right direction.
When we see an actual victim we should help them, without assuming that people that share traits with them are also victims. When we focus on the trait the victim can be lost in the ensuing "movement". For example: Do black lives truly matter if black lives matter as a movement is only focused on a small number of very specific incidents that occur each year while ignoring the increasing numbers happening in their own neighborhoods? Could we solve the problem by helping the actual victims instead of focusing on groups that may resemble them?
When we see a perpetrator victimize someone we should pursue and bring the perpetrator to justice. We should not look at the traits of the perpetrator and instead build a group focused on treating anyone with those traits as though they were the perpetrator. That just creates more victims, and turns those claiming to be seeking justice into perpetrators.
When there is a victim. Help the victim.
When there is a perpetrator. Hold the perpetrator accountable.
It is simple. WE are the ones who are complicating it.
There's a lot of merit in this approach, but what do you think about when there is a clear trend, say a group of people are usually targeted as victims and another group are usually the ones perpetrating?
Also... If we see signs a particular trait is being targeted then that could be a serial perpetrator, or a small group of perpetrators. We try to identify where they are operating and take measures to protect people in that AREA until we have identified and subdued the perpetrators.
We don't create a movement and claim those perpetrators are EVERYWHERE and that people that share some trait with them are the problem.
There will always be bad people. Bigots, racists, etc. We deal with THEM. We do not project them as being indicative of people that share immutable traits with them.
We also should not assume because victims in their "hunting ground" share particular traits that everyone in the country and outside of that hunting ground are also victims.
I think we can target cultures and ideologies. Those things can change. They are a choice.
I don't think we should fixate on immutable traits. That ALWAYS leads to a very bad place without exception. Though it is masked by a lot of emotional appeal.
We should help victims. We should never treat people as criminals before they have committed a crime.
When someone commits a crime we should deal with it.
As soon as we start generalizing based upon traits people cannot choose to change (aka skin color, nose size/shape, eye color, gender, etc.) then we immediately create an imbalance that will not and actually cannot solve the thing it claims to be solving.
It is casting a wide net and ascribing victim status to people who have not actually experienced victimization simply because some people with similar traits to them have been victims.
While simultaneously seeking traits to identify perpetrators by and treating people that have those traits as though they are criminals/perpetrators whether they are guilty or not.
Which turns the people persecuted as perpetrators that were not actual perpetrators into victims and just explodes this cycle and continues it.
It can only lead to war and destruction. It certainly cannot solve the problem.
If we helped the actual victims rather than focusing on people that were not the victim that would be a good start.
If we made certain to hold perpetrators accountable WHEN they actually are guilty that'd also be the right thing to do.
Anything outside of that will be injustice.
Ideas though. We can and should challenge those. Ideas are a choice.
We also must be willing to let people change without treating them as forever damned. Though we must not keep treating a person as though they can change if they keep repeating the cycle. That would just make us into fools and dupes. It also sends the wrong message.
Hmm. I hear you, though 👍
An imaginary circle of empathy is drawn by each person. It circumscribes the person at some distance, and corresponds to those things in the world that deserve empathy. I like the term "empathy" because it has spiritual overtones. A term like "sympathy" or "allegiance" might be more precise, but I want the chosen term to be slightly mystical, to suggest that we might not be able to fully understand what goes on between us and others, that we should leave open the possibility that the relationship can't be represented in a digital database.
If someone falls within your circle of empathy, you wouldn't want to see him or her killed. Something that is clearly outside the circle is fair game. For instance, most people would place all other people within the circle, but most of us are willing to see bacteria killed when we brush our
teeth, and certainly don't worry when we see an inanimate rock tossed aside to keep a trail clear.
The tricky part is that some entities reside close to the edge of the circle. The deepest controversies often involve whether something or someone should lie just inside or just outside the circle.
Empathy is definitely important. Compassion is also important. Yet so often today people's idea of compassion is to enable someone else to be compassionate in their behalf (such as the government). I call this Compassion by proxy. I also state it doesn't exist. If you are not doing it yourself then there was no choice on your part so it is not truly compassionate. Also the entities that are designed to be our proxies for compassion usually are corrupt and don't do nearly what people could do if they simply helped those they encounter in the circle you describe.
I am not a number, I am a free man!!!
Hahahahhahahahhahahah! ;O)
You are number 9.
Gotta love inside jokes. How many people do you think will even know what we are talking about?
I suspect most will think I am being awfully rude! Heh heh
Here you can read an example of an actual situation. I often find storytelling practical to deliver a message.
You seem to use the method of thinking things threw to a possible end. It's a good method, I find.
Yes, short term thinking can be exciting. Yet what happens in the long term is usually pretty critical to know.
It also could be that I've never been much of a gambler.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer you tend to see every problem as a nail"
Wow, I love that quote and will use it in the future. Nice writeup!
Thanks. Yeah, I can't claim that quote as my own but I did twist it and use it in new ways in the post. I've always liked that quote as well.
HIVE!D
Good questions.
I'm not sure if there is an organized effort to counter the "so-called Liberals", but these thoughts should be part of any plan to do so.
And adding to the complexity of the question, what of the "globalists"? Obviously, it is not just the "so-called Liberals" that create these problems.
The dividing line needs to be based on level of responsibility; "I'm just doing my job" should be good enough to excuse line cops and junior bankers, as an example (up to a point, of course). I consider their culpability to be on the same level of the do-gooding retards voting for Leftists.
These are people who operate within the world as it has been explained to them . Paraphrasing Heinlein, "the penalty for stupidity is death"...yet that does not mean that penalty needs to be immediately assessed against all the stupid people. Wouldn't be fair to democide all the stupid folks that fall for leftist/globalist lies while so many stupid people exist on the right and the unpolitical.
The people that actively work for the globalist/leftist Narrative in creating policy and propaganda are culpable. This includes journalists, who are arguably the stupidest people on the face of the Earth. It certainly includes poly-ticks and perfessors.
The dividing line, of course, can be vague. Teachers and burrocrats may fall into either the "just doing my job" or the active participant categories.
The other dividing line lies on "our" side: are we thinking humans, or do we do as you describe?
Hi @stevescoins,
"poly-ticks" :D lol
Journalists are probably not the ones you mean. Rather, people who fall for other people's PR ideas and think Reuters and Co. are the truth bureau. For me, journalists are people who do a report (journal, log), ideally without any commentary of their own, without any cut-ups and without any sensational headlines. They run a recording and let people have their say and tell their story. Journalists are people who listen well and can ask good questions, that is, a sort of artist. The person who is interviewed by an artistic journalist feels the interest in the subject. He feels no need to show off, to defend, argue, etc. - rare are and were those people, no?
A needed question. We do as dwinblood describes and then we don't. In extreme times, like this time, there is the chance to make a self-reflection and to leave where the consciousness tells one to leave. That doesn't come without losses.
I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism
Yes, you describe an ideal journalist. I think that there are only a few of them. I'd say, people have not learned to listen and watch with an open mind. Inwardly the "judging-machinery" starts right off when we are in touch with the world (same with self judging). Constant thoughts trickle into the consciousness (or worse, we are unaware of those chatters in our minds). You see something and it goes "oh, this is good!" or "how bad!", I like, I don't like, I agree, I don't agree ... etc. etc. - to stop doing that, is hard work, I think.
So it's good to watch the self, where one is dogmatic and moving with a closed mind.
We sense people with an open mind and automatically are attracted to them, aren't we?
Yes, very important. Every situation can be dealt with like it's a blank page.
How is the political situation where you live? Are you free to move, what are the Rona measurements in your country? Do you have mask mandates, tests and vaccinations being campaigned?
good point
I breezed right over the corporate shill/independent reporter split...easy to see I am in the non-thinking mode when it comes to the "news". In fact, there have been several reportrs who have left the mainstream media and do som actual reporting; Atkinson, Stassel, Solomon come to mind.
And some people can be clue-x-foured by reality, like the woman reporter who was gang molested whil covering the Aeab Spring
sevwral kinds of possible loss:
thanks
I'll come back to you tomorrow. It's bed time.
Yes. I stopped watching "the news", for I can't stand to listen. You'll get bothered by them anyways.
I am glad to hear that some reporters left the main stream media. I do not know their names, though. I am from Germany and have not heard about anyone known journalist who left, but since I don't follow the main stream for about ten or so years, I am not familiar any more with the names. There was once a female journalist many years ago, who was reading the prime time news and did some other shows, who turned from Saulus to Paulus in a spectacular way. In the middle of a talk show she stood up, ripped off her mike and left the studio. She was dismissed afterwards so badly and a shitstorm came over her. Ever since she stayed critical and does some online-broadcasts. If you bite the hand that feeds you, it bites back - but that's the consequence and we know it.
What people don't realise is that if they never break the established rules, if they conform to the dominant narrative, they cannot imagine how strong the oppression of free spirits is. Their bank accounts are frozen, they are prevented from working by agitated forces, they and their families are attacked and so on. I never really understood the term "political refugee" in depth, but now I do.
The extent of the controlled will becomes clear when you yourself have been a witness at an event and later read the coverage of it and how little documentation is done, but lots of "attitude journalism".
Are you from the USA?
I view this as a form of cowardice. We certainly are a world filled with a lot more pansies...
How many people would gladly charge forward these days screaming "To Valhalla!"
I call them lately "mentally lazy". The education (indoctrination) system has conditioned them to embrace this and simply believe what the "authority" tells them to believe. No questions, no thoughts, just follow the recipe that we give you.
Products of the education system and the blind trust generations have given to this system properly educating.
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times (meme upload fail ;> ) Also see Glubb, "the fate of empires"
OTOH, a strong man would consider any period he is in a hard time, and prepare thusly.
So we may have an unusually high % of cowards, but then gain, bravery is like IQ; I'd submit that most men are cowards in any period.
I wonder how many thralls there were in comparison to those that went a'viking'n
I think that this condition is like cowardice in it's timelessness. Long before Tavistock, Le Bon was pointing out how easy crowds were manipulated.
An educational system subverted over a century or more, while supposedly good men did nothing to deal w the enemies subverting it.
Hell, "good men" did nothing when the Supreme Court assigned itself an over-the-Constitutional role. How much damage has Marbury v. Madison caused?
I said in a recent essay, "If even ONE conspiracy or agenda is true... Then my paranoia is justified."
What I didn't have time to say was, "If even ONE person can break free from indoctrination or brainwashing... Then HOW DARE ANYONE NOT?"
Yes... no other person should be your master.
Any other person has the potential to teach you something. Likewise they have the potential to mislead you.
The choice should always be your own.
I would like to see the "puppet masters" that willfully enslave and manipulate other people held accountable. Either through a justice system or through a sniper scope.
Welcome to their list.
Now, we all know THEY can't hurt you. If they reached out to choke you, they'd just fall out of their little tower. Weak, pathetic cowards.
So they'll have others do it instead, and it'll be ridiculously insane and horrible to watch you try to talk your way out of being thrown about like a rabbit in the jaws of a well-trained dog.
...But should men and women act like "well-trained dogs?"
Sometimes they wake up...
When they do it can be a powerful and beautiful thing.
I've likely been on a list for a long time.
When everyone is on the same list, it's the ones who AREN'T on that list who are missing out on the fun.
That's why I like cats. You cannot train them :)
Oh you can. It is a lot more difficult. We used to train our cats not to get on certain surfaces, and of course to go outside to use the restroom. In some places where outside was not an option we trained them to use the cat box.
Though as far as TRICKS. I don't think I ever successfully trained a cat to do a trick of any kind. My dogs on the other hand could do many things.
I haven't had a cat for a long time and my dog that is sitting behind me is closing on 10 or so years old. :)
I've never had a dog die of natural causes. I lived in places where it always ended up being something else. I am thinking my current dog may be the exception. We live in a far different environment.
Other dogs...
That was just a say. Do you know this one:
A dog that is fed and stroked by its human thinks, "HE must be a god!"
A cat that is fed and stroked by its human thinks, "I must be a goddess!"
My brothers cat actually is very good at training my brother. Whenever she sees him or us sitting in the wintergarden, she makes sound, stops at the transparent cat flap, stares at us from there for a while and then goes to the door, where she remains sitting until my brother gets up and lets her in. I could laugh my head off every time!
Sorry for your dog losses. Seem to be long time companions for you. I never had a dog, nor any other animal. I would have liked but find it sad for them to live in a big city in an apartment.
Say hello to your old dog - good that he is the exception.
What I like about cats is that they do not let themselves being bossed :) My brothers cat decides when she wants to get touched or lay next to you. I welcome it every time, but don't expect it. If you ignore her she comes all by herself. HeHe.