There is a dangerous current of thought that has spread around the whole of modern society, that which reduces the human to a mere productive factor, to an economic instrument that is destined to be one more piece in a world production machinery, and that in the name of freedom hides the most infamous slavery.
A few months ago I read an article about the low birth rate in South Korea, about how many women are deciding not to have a partner or children, but decide to focus only on their work, which of course, not only decreases the birth rate, but completely restructures -not to say destroys- Korean culture and society, which are subordinated to economic development.
This, of course, driven by the postmodernist movements of the so-called Korean "Sampo generation". The woman interviewed in the article supported the collapse of the "male-dominated culture" that, according to them, exists in Korea. The excuse for not having a partner and children is that they believe that, in some way, that is equivalent to being slaves of men.
For them, having a partner, a child and a family is the equivalent of being a slave, but dedicating her whole life to work, and giving up everything they want for the simple fact that it can make them less competitive in the labor market is freedom.
These people who decide to abandon all human qualities for their work, for the simple fact of conceiving success as something merely economic, don't realize that they are enslaving themselves to the will of those who own the money, and they are doing in the name of freedom.
In this way, having a child becomes a burden, as feminists say; or having a couple has no meaning, as the MGTOW say; Individualism is confused with isolationism; and therefore, the family is finally destroyed, dragging the entire society with it.
By sacrificing everything in life and subordinating it to work, its sensible to think that a society formed by these individuals will behave in the same way, so that everything begins to be reduced merely to its economic aspect, and just as the son and the couple are valued on the basis of utility and benefit, all humans are reduced to this, and lack any other value in the social structure.
What is the human being seen from a purely economic perspective? Simply manpower, workforce, a worker or proletarian. And if we take it to its extremes where the human is the most economically useful, that is, where he can achieve the greatest benefit at the lowest cost, the human is nothing more than a slave.
What I am saying is so true, that some movements such as transhumanism have even been created and promoted, which seek to convert the human being, in its totality, into a tool. People who value themselves for their usefulness. In fact, they believe that their attempt to make the human being the most useful slave in history is so inevitable, that they even think that sooner or later everyone will adopt robotic parts to be competitive in the labor market.
There are also those who support mass migration simply because, supposedly, it helps economic development, regardless of the cultural, political or social damages that this may bring; or those who deny immigration, but simply because immigrants take away their jobs; or those who are in favor of destroying all apex of morality in their own land simply to increase economic development; or the fundamentalists of economic systems who want to force other people to adopt it because, according to them, their system brings more development, even if people don't seek such objectives. In short, there are endless examples of how economism is destroying everything that is not economically useful.
Now, all these movements that, fortunately, are not dominant, but which, unfortunately, are being born, are products of a germ that has been in our society for decades, the germ of Marxism.
Many may believe that these things that I have described have something to do with the free market and true liberalism, in fact, it is all the opposite. The economism has little or nothing to do with liberal concepts, but on the contrary, is the younger brother of Marxism.
Have not you noticed that when we talk about social classes we are really referring to economic classes? Have not you noticed that the problems in modernity are things like poverty, material inequality or unemployment? Don't you see that today we measure the nations, and we believe that the greatest is the one that has the best economic performance, regardless of values or culture, and that we are guided in such matters by things like GDP?
All these conceptions, and many more that I will not mention, are born of the same mother; Marxism.
Are the Marxists who believe that society is organized on the basis of the means of production, therefore they are also the creators of the dichotomy capitalism-socialism, or private property vs. state property. Are also the Marxists who, in their economic reductionism, turn the people into "workers" or "proletarians" because they only matter on the basis of their relation to the means of production, and they are also the ones who classify the whole society based on this.
Don't look for a concept of material inequality in the Founding Fathers, in the French revolutionaries or in the Liberators of America, for although they recognized that all men were equal in law, they also recognized that they were, in the same way, unequal by nature. And let's not mention the concern about unemployment that existed only a few decades ago.
Finally, the very concept of GDP can only come from the head of someone looking to plan the economy, as in effect was used in the beginning by the government of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, someone who is well known precisely for being against the free market and to true liberalism; with its social-democratic, interventionist and expansionist policies, along with its little respect for American institutions and democracy.
I know that sometimes we use such instruments to have some data regarding economic development, and it is sometimes necessary to do so, because such development is not at all despicable, however, as long as it is followed, in the same way as Marxists, subordinating everything to a reductionist vision, the results will be catastrophic, deceptive, and finally, dangerous.
For the rest, and if we continue to be subordinated on the basis of measures created by Marxist minds, we don't expect the results to be different from Marxism, and if we continue to reduce ourselves to mere economic instruments that only have value for their usefulness, then don't be surprised when we are utilized/used by others.
Image Source: 1
The four horsemen of the apocalypse - white, red, black, and pale - are interpreted as Christ, War, Famine, and Death. Another perspective may interpret these as moral legitimacy, power politics, mercantile ascendancy, and disruption dynamics.
Human societies enforce cohesion first through the powers of moral proscriptions, traditional customs, shared civility. When the moral fabric frays, the use and abuse of political force and strength of will become necessary to hold and bind the disperate competing human ambitions into a coherent whole.
The obtuse force projection through military and legal institutions inevitably results in mercantile ascendancy that supply limitless credit to the political institutions. Once the political apparatus becomes dependent upon the coin of easy credit, the society becomes enthralled by mercantile gnomes.
It may be that we will witness the rise of disruption dynamics that will ultimately shatter current mercantile phase of societal cycle. Al Qaeda demonstrated that power resides not with those who control finance, but with those who can disrupt the flow of credit. The hacker group "anonymous" has much influence and power, as they can aim their disruption at any institution or sector of our increasingly interconnected and interdependent economy. Mere threat of violence or disruption can result in catastrophic losses for finacial institutions and its nation-state host.
When all of creation becomes ledgerized into blockchain virtual space, electronic disruption by any disgruntled faction will result in dissolution of entire industries, collapse of nation-states, and deletion of entire cultures. Without shared moral principles and cultural norms, man is an isolated unit, obligated and responsible to no one. Without even the financial credit flow to bind men together, we may experience the collapse of the global network, as our ancestors did 3000 years prior. A world built upon virtual currency will inevitably dissolve into the aether, from which it arose.
A very gloomy prognosis you're making. Of those who are spoken to here, all will probably agree with you. Probably all those who no longer work with their bodies but with their minds. So all those who are not involved in care, obstetrics, work with the disabled and the elderly, babies and small children. Or do social work that brings people together with people in real physical life.
I cannot estimate this, but I suspect that the physically rooted person is in an inferior position. Nevertheless, I do not believe that realistic assessments must necessarily be made. The thing is, if you let your cynicism win you over, or if you're pessimistic or even fatalistic, you'll be impressed by the fact that basically - at least it seems - all of humanity thinks of itself as a disease (I'm not talking to you personally now, because I don't know how you feel about it). But it can also be considered quite differently. The will to change one's perspective and accept something else because one wants it: also a possibility.
I believe that wisdom can be learned and is a matter that can be obtained through continuous human encouragement and effort. It takes a lot to do that, but I think and see a counter-movement that considers cohesion worth striving for, one that is not led by revolution or struggle or terror. So it is good that you mentioned this.
I am sure you are right, and note my experience has been wisdom is the product of foolish mistakes, but only for those that profitably consider their mistakes.
For this reason, my deepest regrets are those I most appreciate having responsibility for, as only having done regrettable things might I know not to ever do such things again.
Thanks!
Good.
Let's work then on to get more wise and to know when to act and when to let go.
So, doing foolish things to learn from?
=p
if there is a thing you consider to have been foolish than yes, it serves you as a learning experience. I know of no human who hadn't done something foolish. The less one learned through adolescence the more foolish the decisions can become.
I had given myself several lessons in foolishness. I did shameful things. I am willing to learn to forgive myself and to bring as much distance between those things and my present life. So I can heal and also appreciate what is good now.
And simply stop being foolish :) How about you? From whom and what do you learn and get your insights?
Modern man is disconnected from his environment, his neighbors, his heritage, his family, his creator, and ultimately himself. In the past, tyrannical overlords would remove men from their places of birth, their family, their society, and their religion, in order that the conquered would become discombobulated meat tools. In our modern world, such removal of man from his sociocultural matrix is not only expected, but encouraged; most men voluntarily and enthusiastically remove themselves from that which reenforces their identity. Somewhere in the planes of the afterlife, Qin Shi Huang is rolling in his hell, envious of the accomplishments of modern tyrants, in enacting what he attempted with the force of limitless armies and bureaucrats with mere money and subversive indoctrination.
True freedom of man can only be attained through man first defining himself in relation to the rest of creation and with his creator. Those who imagine themselves free or in power because they hold tools and institutions fail to realize that it is not they who wield the tools and instintutions, but the tools or institutions that wield them. The mercantile gnomes are trapped in the so-called market cycle, resulting from money that is divorced from reality, but unable to act differently due to the dictates of the very system they imagine they control.
@soo.chong,
you describe in great detail the grievances that we are all more or less familiar with.
What else do you have to say? Have you reached a degree of freedom for yourself that leaves you satisfied? No matter what forces outside your reach seek to control you, it depends on how you evaluate your personal maturity and what you do to make sure that you and yours are well. You merely describe in a more eloquent way what you consider to be the cause of evil.
What kind of lifestyle have you chosen for yourself? What encouraging example do you personally give? Are you at peace with yourself, or is that what you seek?
Voltaire's Candid and Swift's Gilliver's Travels are essentially the same stories with protagonists traveling the world and experiencing the foolishness of man's arbitrary sociocultural matrix, under which humanity is yoked. Yet, the two tales arrive at conclusions fundamentally opposed to each other. A wise and humble Candid, despite being yoked to a shrew of a wife, a perpetual pessimist friend, and hostile in-laws, is content to tend his gardens. A cynical and proud Gulliver, despite the material wealth and modest fame, shuts himself away, unable to interact with the imperfect world and the yahoos that live within it.
This plane of existence is flawed, as man himself is imperfect. Rather than rejecting reality, being obsessed with unattainable vision of utopia, the wise accept reality and engage the evil, flawed, corrupt world by tending to their gardens. There is a sphere of inflence, within which man can shape his environment. Most men, like Gulliver, isolate themselves from the world, unable to accept reality, bitterly complaining to themselves, others, God that our world falls short of utopia. Rather than tending their gardens, they demand revolution, failing to comprehend that creations of flawed creatures will always be flawed.
Influence and contentment begins with the man. Before exercising liberty, man must first, discipline his mind, govern his emotions, and submit to the will of God by living according to his station and responsibility. Having a figure like Martin is useful, as long as the information is only utilised to gauge public sentiments. Events beyond the sphere of a man's control are accepted, and his life adjusted to reflect the new reality. Such life perspective has provided contentment. By what life perspective have you constructed your life?
Are you not talking about yourself in the I form? Do you identify with the protagonists?
I first had to look up Voltaire's work. You could simply tell me where you stand in your personal development. I can't tell if you want to learn anything or if you think you're completely mature?
For me, there is no singular perspective from which I build my life. I am still learning to take every day so that I can calmly face the flow of events in my own sphere of influence. I am learning to accept my emotions by wanting to feel them when they come and by not negating or trying to suppress any of them. This is a difficult work for me. It never stops. And I am already close to 50.
Because anger, fear, powerlessness, suffering, guilt, and worry keep reappearing in the constant flow of life. It is extremely difficult not to blame these emotions on others as causative. Then I would just as easily have to make my laughter, love, joy and serenity depend solely on others. But neither do I manage everything alone and have control, nor am I completely alone and isolated. I live in constant change with my fellow men and my environment. It influences me, I influence it. It would make no sense to say anything else.
I am not convinced about Martin's character. We have a lot of Martins in the world and he seems to stop at the pessimistic lament.
In principle, we can hardly meet if we have to talk about literature alone.
A long time ago, I was a rabid proponent of individuality, freedom, equality, and brotherhood. The common man, in the folly of my youth, was held as the model for human development. I held freedom as the most cherished principle and celebrated every revolution against the "establishment." I was a humanist fanatic, certain of the inevitable "progress" and "evolution" of humanity toward egalitarian utopia.
Nihil novo sub sole. One day, a small landlocked African backwater burned with tribal hatred which intensity rivalled that of 10,000 supernovae, resulting in the most efficient killing frenzy in the entirety of human history. The "civilized" world actively ignored the event; the perpetual victim group flaired in offense at some, who labelled the event as "genocide;" the average man could not be bothered to even learn the name of this backwater nation. And who were the killers in this backwater cesspool but the average man?
Freedom, brotherhood, equality are meaningless drivel compared with gas, water, electricity. The average man will peck at sand, if told it is grain. Human society is built upon fiction, and it is far better to maintain that fiction, rather than have men devolve into beasts. The Christian perspective regarding the prime cause of evil in this world arising from man's rebellion is true. There has been no greater evil inflicted upon humanity than from "reformers," who imagine themselves claygods, dictating to Heaven their whims.
Man requires excellence towards which he must constantly strive. Otherwise, he descends towards beasts. I learned, painfully, that life without obligation and responsibility is slavery to my addictions and desires. Freedom is but license to every imaginable vice for those who have not mastered themselves. I learned to reject the vicious humanist indoctrination regarding equality of men and their potential; a man's identity is defined by his limitations and refined by his diligence at his station. Brotherhood of man is not established by destroying social classes, but enforcing the duties of men in service to their lords and the obligations of the lords in loyalty towards their subjects. In the abscence of this mutually binding social reality, humanity subsists upon impersonal mercantile contracts.
The limits of my influence are primarily my thoughts, speech, and actions. Secondarily, my influence extends to my daughter, but she models her life in relation to the control I enforce upon myself. My duties are towards God and obligations towards my daughter. Foremost in my mind is the following statement: Such pride undeserved, great conqueror, when your entire being is borrowed. Credit where it is due and dues where payment is demanded. After all, what in this world can we claim ours, when we enter with nothing and will leave with nothing?
I am blinded by your brilliance.
Yet...
I find this an interesting oxymoron, perhaps born of your societal considerations. Nothing arose from aether, but all our artifacts have been crafted with real sweat and toil. Anonymous hackers and megalomaniacal profiteers alike spin the world of their blood and treasure, and the fruit of our labor forever contributes to further development.
Forgive my ignorance, but can you elucidate on the specific occurrence you refer to here?
Thanks!
The money, whether "precious" metals, fiat, or bitcoin, that the modern era uses to ledgerise all of creation has no connection with reality. Modern money has no relation to productivity. The value of money is determined merely via interest rates, arbitrarily set by the mercantile banking cartel. Much of government revenue derives not from taxation of production, but via credit expansion through lower interest rates. National debt fueled the modern era, and the next era, our overlords imagine, will be ushered via global debt.
This world has been built upon the aether of virtual money. From aether this world arose, and to aether this world shall return.
You are not wrong, yet blood and treasure was expended on this endeavor, and will yield it's reward.
That may not be the reward the investors seek, however.
The collapse of late bronze age mediterranean civilization has uncanny parellel to our modern globalized world. Following this cataclysm, the collapse of Hellenism with the death of Rome could be considered similar civilizational collapse event. Collapse of the successive Chinese dynasties from Zhou to KMT in the Orient reflect their Western counterparts. Humanity seems to be trapped in this cycle.
Thank you for that information.
I strongly agree that we are seemingly in a cyclic vortex of development and destruction, yet I remain confident that ultimately madmen willing to burn it all down will eventually fail to do so, and the abilities native to humanity via the agency of physics will end that cycle forever.
Either that, or we will become extinct, which is not a factor in anyone's calculations, since that result makes every calculation moot. I therefore ignore that possibility.
What a prognosis! It's certainly thought provoking.
Interesting prognosis, indeed. All societies and civilizations have a beginning and an end, the modern is not the exception as many think, and for me it is evident that there are obvious symptoms of decadence already, so it is not unreasonable to think that modern civilization can have even less than a century of life.
But you should well know that the collapse of a civilization is only the beginning of another. The increase of religious, spiritualists, and moralists of all kinds in modern society shows, as evident proof, that a new one is emerging. The famine and death that you mention is only feasible for those who cling to obstinate and obsolete ideas that will soon have no place. Unfortunate, of course, but to a certain degree everyone has the freedom to choose where to position themselves.
In college taking a social theory class, I thought I agreed with the ideas of Marxism; it sounded appealing, destructive and the like. A bit later in life though I realized that Marxism is just an ideal. Once the end-game of Marxism is achieved, then what? There is no plan for what to do afterwards, just always the perpetual keep on trudging forward towards the goal.
I've thankfully since moved away from identifying with such a theory but it was interesting to be able to think of it prospectively and realize that it was just an incredibly destructive path, we are better than such destruction.
Oh, there is no "afterwards" in socialism, the Soviet Union spent 70 years in "revolution", Cuba has been 59 years, Venezuela 20 years. They manage to be in power for decades, and still say they are "revolutionaries", as they manage to be a very small elite, yet "popular".
These ideas fit well in young people, because they have neither intelligence nor experience, but old people who have such a thought are already depressing.
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
FreezePeach
I think we need to define what freedom truly is. Because while you make an excellent point that women have a deluded idea that wage slavery is freedom, the family unit is also a form of slavery. The reason is that as long as someone can hold you hostage and withhold your only means of supporting yourself (salary), you can never be free.
Salaried work is not slavery, slavery is to subordinate your whole life to that. And certainly if one person's partner is totally dependent on the other, then it will be at his mercy and the result will be the same.
If you want material wealth you must work, if you want a family you must have a partner, but if you completely subordinate yourself to any of these things (as to anything else) then you depend on them, and you will not be free.
And I referred to the partner, and not the children, because the latter are their responsibility, and all the people, especially the free ones, must take charge of their responsibilities.
Subordinating completely to anything is exactly slavery, but doing it specifically in the work is the same kind of slavery we have seen in history.
I have long been of the opinion that feminism plays into the hands of business and single existence. Or whatever you should call this movement that supposedly liberates somebody.
If you are a woman and you have given birth to a child, you quickly realize that you don't know what being a woman means. You are blind and stupid towards all other mothers and parents and have imagined a career. It's nobody's fault, it's just a men's habit many decades before, which was just taken over by the women. Women would not have had to emancipate themselves as men. Men needed an emancipation from work and their industrial lifestyle. This never happened in a resounding form. It probably will not. It is rather a leisurely development that is not very noisy.
As always, it is due to annoying habits, to the choice of a lifestyle that is determined by school, family and other influences such as the media (including government language tubes). You have to work your way out, read a lot, listen to the world and learn to trust yourself. Competition and wrong standards are in the way.
A man has not known who he is for a long time, he knows far less than a woman. Fatherhood almost ceased to exist at the beginning of the industrial age and only in the rural rural areas did the extended family stay for a long time. If men were their own liberators, women would automatically benefit as well. Instead, the female sex must behave masculine or think it must. All on our own, we have understood that birth control is something that makes it easier to manage one's life as a woman if one thinks economically. This topic depresses me...
Nevertheless, it is necessary to talk about it.
Feminism always played into the hands of business. Before, only half of the population was being worked and taxed (men). Feminism brought women into the workforce, bringing more revenue and labor to both big business and government. Plus, it created more social tension between the sexes, ensuring that they will never work together to stop the real oppressors.
Don't forget that it doubled the workforce, thus reducing the pay of all through supply and demand.
I wrestle today with formulating a reasonable response to feminism because of the fact that feminism utterly destroys family, which is the foundation of civilization, yet women are undoubtedly free people and a just society must not suppose that men alone might vote or work at their sole option.
Thanks!
Any suggestions or encouragement? What have you so far made of your insights? Can you observe a changing lifestyle for yourself?
I can tell that my life changed a lot since I became a mother. To the better. Though financially I never will reach the income I once had. But it has low priority.
I may start a family one day but not until I am financially independent. I don't want government and business to interfere with my life. They have done enough damage. They are only interested in exploiting my friends, family, time and money. Only by being financially independent, I can protect myself and the people I care about.
having children ist not about money or time, is what I learned.
It's wanting to father or mother younger ones, it's a generational thing and an order of life. If you're having a gift or a talent you want to show to younger people, you needn't to be a parent necessarily but could also be a role model for nephews/nieces or neighbor kids etc. It's about wanting to have to do with different generations. The young learn from the older and vice versa. To come into touch with different age groups brings variety and abundance to ones life.
Doing that with own children is a bit easier because you are more forced into this system of different people. A reason for children is maturation of the self. Nowadays it's harder to mature and the children have a much more difficult role when they get immature parents who must learn to become adults through parenthood. But it's the way it is.
I haven't known this but now it has become obvious for me.
If you do have an urge towards wanting to give something of you, you should start from where you are. No matter if with own kids or kids from other people.
I agree. However, I think you underestimate the power of money; it can tear down families and relationships in the blink of an eye. Perhaps this is a difference in our cultures. You are obviously fron Germany but I am from New York City.
I appreciate your insight.
I am very realistic about money. As I know that many people actually cannot handle money (once it's in their hands and a lot of it).
I choose not to lure myself and earn little. It was a free choice of mine. So it doesn't bind my time. I am only working about 17 hours a week. When you want to earn more you must put a lot of more time and energy into it. There is no independence in financial success. If you want to stay financially successful it'll eat up most of the energy. When money is the driving force it will drive you. What other people do is none of my business:)
If they decide on destroying relationships, they just take the money to blame. It's neither the money nor the materialistic matters which tear down families. It's the worries.
New York seems to be a tough environment. What does support you for your own well being? Where do you get orientation?
Sadly, by considering economics at all when considering being human, you are falling prey to the psyop of every profiteering endeavor. Society is far more than an economy, and if you but spend a moment in consideration you will note that the largest and best families aren't particularly invested in currency.
My point being that you are allowing money to blind you to the real wealth family is to people. I hope you can see further and better than I, who have but three sons to my credit.
In hindsight, I wish I had started my family(s) much earlier in life, rather than waiting until I was in my 30s.
You misunderstand me. Money isn't my main objective; it's time. Being independent mean that no one can take that time from me. I want to use that time to spend with my loved ones. Because time is a resource I will never get back. I have no intention of becoming the man in the gray flannel suit.
I want to believe you. Really I do. But I feel that your perspective would fit better in an earlier time. It's 2018 and we are dealing with unstoppable forces that encroaches upon our nature as humans. In order to preserve that nature, many of us will have to make difficult choices. Mine is simple; If the numbers (money + time) don't add up, then I won't have a family.
Thanks a lot for your input
I noted that I traded my money for time with my family. What I meant by this was that I just didn't leave to earn, and instead stayed and helped my family learn.
You can create necessary time with family, or you can do other things. Since you're presently doing other things, you are not spending time with your family.
This is the bare fact.
You will do you. I pray you are always pleased with the results. Fortunately for me, I lived to regret a great deal of foolishness, and have thereby learned some small bit of wisdom. It is what I most regret that I am happiest to have learned from today.
You do not need money to have time. Time isn't money.
You will do you, and I pray you are happy in the coming days with what you do today. If you want kids, the longer you have to spend as their parent, the more you will have to rejoice about. If money is not what you seek, but time with your family, it makes no sense to wait to have a family until you have more money. You are spending that time you could be spending on your family on money.
The problem with feminism seems to be that the ideologues who spew this drivel have little to no understanding of womanhood. Feminism is but a mere attempt at grasping power by competing with men, in the field of male speciality. An idea that seek to transform a woman into a perversion of man by adopting manhood and rejecting womanhood is toxic to both men and women. It is akin to Orientals and Hispanics attempting to compete with Africans and Europeans in the field of physical prowess by enhancing their physical limitations via artificial means.
The concept of "equality" is quite pernicious. Equality lies at the foundation of industrialization and centralization. The ledger system cannot operate in the reality of inequality; it can only function under the assumption and premise that creation is equal, or rather hold equal value. Any child will instinctively comprehend that no two trees are equal, no two dogs of equal quality, and no two humans are equal in capacity. In the mechanical cog of central bureaucracy, and later industrial factories, reality operates in opposition to their vision of replaceable cogs and simplified ledgers. By assigning equality to man and woman, under arbitrary criterion, the state, and later the mercantile consortium, can more efficiently ledgerise humanity as tools and commodities to be leveraged.
I think there are a lot of people who see exactly what you're describing. We are sensitive beings and notice quite quickly when someone wants to sell us a "U" for an "A". But if we also enter into such a swindle, because we lack the courage to admit our own absence, because we bought it after all, it doesn't help to point to others.
Just the other day I had a conversation about a man being persuaded by a woman to father a child and then wondering how it could happen that everything went terribly wrong. He will have known right at the beginning that nothing and nobody can persuade him to do anything that he himself does not really want. We all have this sense and this form of attention within us. We need to awaken it and encourage people with whom we come into contact to use their lie detector. Everyone has one, just like the children you mentioned. I could also say intuition. Do you have an example for me in which your intuition guided you correctly? Where did you prevent a stupidity that you were about to do?
Or what situation did you get out of because you realized that fighting or conflict intensification is the wrong way?
Man and woman are inseparable, at the moment in which one lost direction, the other also, the moment one finds it, the other will do it, because their relationship is reciprocal, and contrary to the conspiratorial inventions of "patriarchy" that the neo-Marxists, always reductionists, want to believe, there has always been a mutual consensus.
If men and women begin to be truly honest with themselves and stop being guided by deceptive environments, everyone will do, not only the right thing, but also what will be most pleasing to both.
Yes, very much so.
It needs the certainty that the actions or omissions of man and woman in this reciprocity are carried by trust. Especially under tensions that inevitably occur, as everything is a constant alternation between tension and relaxation.
It was an epiphany that changed my life, when I realized that society was far more than merely an economy. I appreciate noting others like yourself have also come to this realization, and sadly far too many have not.
It may be worth considering that the boogeyman of the enemedia is the Nazi. Nazi was the short endearing term for the National Socialist party, and is ascribed all manner of evil and ills. One that may best exemplify evil is the words over the entrance to Auschwitz: Arbeit Macht Frei - Work will set you free.
I am not a wallet, and I have purpose other than simply being stuffed with money. A man leaves a legacy, and with a hammer I have left good affects that will long survive me in the lives of people I may never meet in this world.
Is the point of life to die with the most bags of colored paper (or the longest string of digits in a DLT)? If not - and it is not - what is important?
Live well, and though you live a thousand times, you will not regret doing what is good for your family, friends, and neighbors.
Thanks!
There is a saying that says something like; its manifest foolishness to live precariously in order to die rich.
The economic reductionism is very embedded in modern common sense, it is difficult to realize, but after you notice that not everything revolves around the economy, then there is a complete change of perception.
Regards!
Modern day slavery is done through International Admiralty Law through Commerce commanded by the Universal Postal Union which has dominated planet Earth since 1875 under Freemasonry.