[sticky entry] Sticky: General notice

31 December 2037 08:21 pm
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Advise to all arriving visitors:

If you share extreme political right-wing points of view, in fact if you call yourself a November Alfa Zulu India and look for a comrade, I'd advise you to better leave my territory.
I am armed, but I am none of your kind.
Get clear of this before you add me to your list.

For the dangerous times' sake:

Descriptions of violence in this journal are either a rhetorical device (Stilmittel) to convey content or part of a discussion.
Any similarities to living persons given at any time are purely unintentional.
Ambitions to harm anyone in the reality are NEVER given.

Political partisanship:

I'm one of the many people which watch the processes inside the big clockwork, for the reasons that it's either their job or for private hobby interest.
If you wanna chase criminals planning to kill any living persons, go some other place!
You only get on the nerves of an ordinary person!

Additional note to the sake of social media:

Comments made via famous data-collecting services or services of data-collecting firms are not desired.
This includes the services of the book to show your face as well as the goggles with two the O's.
If you're not sure if the service you want to use is one of these kraken, better drop it anonymously.

Another content note:

This is an NWO-free zone.
If you like to cling to this theory or the other likes, you've landed at the wrong space. Spreading of these kinds of contents is not desired as it is highly speculative substance whose proofs primarily work in the minds of their believers.
If not subject of an entry, there's no wish in discussing that matter or making it available to an audience.

About sharing:

If one writes openly, he needs to live with other entities reposting his content.
As long as no-one tries to generate personal gain (money, damage to others), it'll be okay with that.
In other cases remains the possibility to link because links don't take away anything from the place it once was put out.

Anonymous commenting generally is enabled, unless spam occurred or somebody is trying hard to molest or have a fight.

"Summer of Hardstyle" is on!

More info about the campaign here

matrixmann: (Thinking)
When an icon of one's suicidal youth commits suicide himself, then it's indeed an irony that life offers there.
But, thinking about it, what's it with a hero, where does this status end and where does he start to be only a human being again? With own problems, desires, flaws and personal weaknesses?
It's actually so very simple. So simple that one forgets about it when he looks up to someone.
Every hero that is like an icon to those with demons plaguing them inside, most often he fights some demons inside himself. Even when it's long past having your biggest battle with them, the fight goes on because, once developed, these demons never let you go again. Until the end of your life.
And so... it comes that even a hero might surrender them, although everyone of that kind of human logically knows it is nonsense to do so.
But sometimes you don't know how strong they are, how much a plague they are to the protagonist and how long he already kept fighting them - or how long he already kept running away from them.
It's tough to judge this from the outside - from the outside it's always a pretty easy job to do.
Much tougher it always is when judging it from the inside and taking note of one's abilities and capacities to overcome. How much he/she's caught up in the dependencies of his/her own life. And how much or less there's a way out of it what is plaguing someone.
In that point, even a hero is just a human...
And those things may press him to the wall until he's "about to break".
matrixmann: (Default)
Originally posted by [personal profile] matrixmann at Erinnerung

Mythos vom Widerstand.
Graf von Stauffenberg.

Die drohende Niederlage auf allen Fronten und Verlust von persönlichen Privilegien führte zu dem Beschluss, dass die dilettantische Führung liquidiert werden muss.

Myth about resistance.
Graf von Stauffenberg.

The threat of defeat on all fronts and possible loss of personal privileges lead to the decision that the dilettantish acting leader must be liquidated.
matrixmann: (Black suits comin')
"Which one of your oaths is the one more important to you?"
"Of course that oath to protect civil life from harm!"
"Then why don't you rebel against your superior when he just orders you to harm the people you swore to protect?!"
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
People miss guts in this time episode. All feel as courageous to want to join the table, join the discussion and contribute their ideas, but when it comes down to standing out, standing by one's own ideas, risking a head for it and speaking up, defending it, then most of them play the cowards and hide behind the bush. Have a birthday party to organize. A tree to plant. A household shopping to do. Hold back. Try to satisfy the zeitgeist's picture of a good public image. And, above all, try to not to be a leader. Try not to be someone who inspires others, but just who staccatoes down its arguments like a record stuck on replay and who could be stolen from a factory which produces these guys from a mass mold.
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
The hypocrisy of the rockers - bragging to create something of great importance and pretending this to the audience, but in fact it's the same every time they bring out a new album or go on tour. The same phrases, the same talking... Lyrics stay the same, music style stays the same - little variation.
Where is the great revolution you talk about? Seems like more trivial than there really is.
You produce the same kind of junkfood sound for the masses like all other empty hip popstars. You try to sell it as something else, but who listens carefully recognizes that it's always nearly the same like before. Not really much different than the rest of the commercialized circus...
matrixmann: (Default)
Originally posted by [personal profile] matrixmann at Erinnerung

2011: Spliting of Sudan.
matrixmann: (Somebody called me?)
Is it just me or has there really been a technical downgrade between the original Silent Hill series (I-IV) and the later installments, although for V there's been the hike-up to the next-generation consoles?
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
"You think, when you're out of school you're free, sonny? Oh, hell no! Then work life calls for you - and work life is only a continuation of what's been happening in school, only worse and even more strict. What you already were there, you gonna be also in your job life. If you were a loser, a slacker or a victim of your school mates' coping methods for boredom already there, then you gonna be the same among your colleagues. A really, really small cog in the clockwork...
The only way you'll not be forced to deal with this is when you happened to be born to an incredibly wealthy family or if you managed to become rich on your own before the day you leave school. Which is like zero probability.
So, don't even try to think you're a bigwig that gets his way."


30 June 2017 12:40 am
matrixmann: (Thinking)
"What most people do wrong in understanding politics and processes in society is: All things are interlinked. 5 threads or more inflict influence upon each other at the same time, and that's just only the present! Then add processes that are deeply linked and dependent on history to it.
Everything's as it is because of particular reasons - and the reasons are: The many complex threads of information that meet in one spot.
Trying to get a detailed overview constructed in one's head - like a map of a geographical area - about those actually is understanding the matter.
Unterstanding the matter is the base for developing the path to the future and preventing unwanted processes."
matrixmann: (Thinking)
(Attention: This is highly speculative content and shouldn't be taken with scientific correctness!
Further down, it also shouldn't be taken as hatespeech or as a base to reason artificial interferences to execute population policy.
At first, it's just thoughts considering and philosophizing about a subject and it's meant as nothing more than that.)

World population grows every year, mainly in Africa and Asia.
Although in those areas, at least Africa the most, the common health care accessible to the normal people is far away from being satisfying. Still a lot of people die in their child years.
But even though, of those who are born, still a higher number manages to survive to make the population grow.
Is that so?
Population growth in Europe and other areas in the world counted as "developed" these days, it happened the most as technological and scientific progress appeared. As the influence of the Christian churches slowly declined, compared to the Middle Ages.
The increase in what health care could provide from the scientific viewpoint, and even the more as the distribution to the normal populace with low and average income for the time episode started to take place (for the sake of taking the soil away from social democrats and early communists), this is what is considered as the main reason for the explosive population growth that appeared between the 19th and the 20th century.
In Asia, this is partly the case, if you take a look at China which keeps increasing its capacities for provision constantly. But compare it to India. India is rich in population, but still the caste system is intact and richness and the deepest poverty both exist in this country without ever seeing light at the end of the tunnel to ever change. The normal population can't have that access to proper health care, otherwise it couldn't be one of the main research countries for medication tests on humans.
So, how would this rule apply there? Health care increasing the chances of survival of the individual, while people still tend to have families with many children born because of social reasons?
Is the population in the "developing" countries really the problem, if distribution of health care to everyone, as a base for survival of the masses of people born, is no topic in those despite economy experiencing growth all the time?

Taking a look at Europe and the already "developed" areas.
Population numbers in those areas have never been higher than today. Today is the max for these ever in history.
If those wouldn't live from getting people from other areas of the world moving into their territory, population numbers would already be in a noticeable decline. (Except for US because reproductive rights are under constant threat of clerical conservatives of being abandoned or killed by lack of funding, and people from the lower classes, who bear the most children there, depend on social programs to provide this to them, as proper distribution of health care to people from all states of wealth doesn't exist there.)
In the developed nations, about 95% of the population born survives into old age. Predators in the 5%-quota are diseases, malformations, accidents, pollution, man-made violence and psychic diseases caused by circumstances habored in this way of civilization.
So, population numbers in those areas remain constant with a slight decline in the long term. They get actively tried to be kept on the max. Be it home-bred population or through immigration.
And this through all the times.
So... basically, where does the point of attention lie really when it comes down to population policy?
In the developing countries, where still the least of the humans born survives until they're adults, and they die in a young age because of diseases damaging their health, or in those areas where nearly every person born survives until approximately 60 at least? And the number of people achieving this is being kept relatively constant at all times?
It may be worth picking up this hard constrast "95% survival" vs. "high mortality" for a closer look.
While the times of boom economic growth are over in the developed world, everything's build up that needed to be build up, now it only suffers from wrong proportion of the distribution, population decline in harsher numbers would be the logical consequence - as, in the phase of building something up, it needs more resources than when only maintaining and keeping up the state of things as they are currently. Also, there is not a need for "more" resources to be used as ante in the process.
Not even to speak of when the next stage of the technoligical age becomes reality and some more machines replace the human labor in the productive sectors, which makes the part of the population being employed in that sector become out of work and for sure also a part of them "obsolete" in the terms of the employment market.
So to say, the high population numbers of the developed world, in the long term, progress into a state of all of its population that it habors isn't "needed" anymore. It's like only in a position of consuming and sucking up resources, in a position of being a "consumer". Unable to give back or be of relevance to the integrity of the system. Others would call it drastically "trash", that's what they are then. - "Trash" that would need to be administered until its death and not be renewed / replaced by another person, to be exact.
So... when an area tries to keep its population number up in a state like before the big industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century that it actually doesn't need anymore, it raises the question towards "How healthy for the planet is this strategy?"? How good in population policy worldwide is this actually?
And how much does it distort the numbers?
How much is it a factor that's part of the overall problem?
How much does that overclocked number cause in damage because a part of the population already exists in needlessness, but still they consume resources like all other people who are needed by the system to function?
To state something very clearly: The people who this applies to, they aren't to blame for what they are. If they have worked through a respective way of education and even performing an occupation for an amount of time throughout their lives, then there's no talking about "self-caused circumstances". Those people aren't obsolete because they haven't had ambitions and therefore were lazy and spoiled since a very young age. They've become obsolete because the system they live in doesn't need them anymore. In a certain span of time they were needed indeed, but now no more. - In difference to people who didn't even try for a decent school education and stayed away from it to hang out with friends, drink beer and destroy window glasses.
Therefore, because they're not to blame, they should at no point of the story be treated like if they were.
The solution for these should just be, plain and simple, to not to replace them in the next generation. Their life remains untouched, but as there is no need to have another person regrow into that position, there better shouldn't exist one to respawn.

When these obsolete numbers are being kept and maintained constantly, how much does it distort the real needs and the real functionality of the system that humans build for themselves to live in?
How much is it also responsible for overpopulation - for population that is there, but without a need of human civilization for them to exist?
What happens - how do the numbers look if that population doesn't exist anymore? In the developed world, as well as when Africa, Asia, South America only has the population number that it needs (considered, the economy of the "developing" areas also makes it to a state of things comparable to the so-called "industrialized nations" measured by what their environment allows)?
What if there are not that many people around anymore whose only purpose is to be there as a consumer because there is no task for them in this world?
And, what would happen to the yearly growth numbers if socially the issues of "children as security that supplies you in bad times / old age" would be adequately solved, in combination with that?
What would happen if mankind only grows or stays the same in such masses that it also has tasks for in its differing societies?

At least upon further thought it doesn't seem like the developed world is totally not to blame for the problem of the overpopulation. They try to keep up a number within their territories that's unrealistically high compared to the possible employment rate that it's able to supply when everything is run under fair circumstances (opposed to the current strategy of part-time work and letting the developing countries produce their food and their consumer goods).
When 95% of all humans survive until old age, you don't need people to have 2 and 3 children or more anymore. Better you should be happy if some people can't or don't want to have children because of certain reasons. Because that's getting closer to a realistic number, not even to speak of the children who would suffer for their whole lives as adults if there is no purpose in society for them.
And not even getting started to speak of the impact on the environment if there's one big resources-consumer less in the world...

It would be a drastic restructuring of society as it was to adapt to these circumstances with less people exsting again. But that process would be inevitable, as human civilization always finds a way of making work and production more effective than before, and by the time, this comes at the cost of human labor. No matter which economical system or system of world views it has in a century.
It is like one and only constant thread that keeps unfolding in history.

If not for those processes in mankind, which one can regard from one or another thousand positions, just think about the extinction of animal species: Animals vanished, as humans claimed the living space and bred like rabbits. Where humans live, animals have to go as humans want to live alone or even need the space for themselves.
One doesn't need to wonder about that process, as the earth has only a limited amount of living space.

Environment topics - overpopulation - vanishing of animal species - economy - social problems - all these topics are interconnected with each other. Each brick - another little factor in the other issue.
And when humans want to live up to the high goals they set for themselves in their enthusiasm, then they need to show a willingness to do something for this and to also adapt their societies to the links of the circumstances that are right in front of them.
There is no washing without getting wet. And no-one said it would be comfortable. Who thinks it would be, he lives in the world of a little child... Fairytales and unicorns.
matrixmann: (Default)
The sellout of public housing in the big cities to private investors is like when the financially strong part of the bourgeoisie conquers the living space of what once has been the place to live of the regular people - poor, middle class and workers. The part of the populace what once made up the natural residents of the cities get driven out of town into the outskirts...
What remains is an unnatural population in the cities, which only looks for entertainment, pleasure, some food to eat - like in an amusement park. The city's there for providing, but it's no home to anyone anymore. Rich hipsters have a room here and there to stay for a night... They jetset around the world, living everywhere.
matrixmann: (Default)
A reminder in times where mass media declare recently deceased former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Helmut Kohl "a person loving and always having fought for freedom":

In 1985, by the first government under chancellor Kohl, the change of the general law concerning the freedom of assembly had been applied that imposes a ban on wearing face coverings ("Vermummungsverbot") for most public events and a ban of protective gear such as armor of all kinds on these events.
Ever since then, the only right to assemble you have is to come around in your casual suit and to be recognizable for every policeman on this event at any given time.

(See post: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/35829.html (all links in German))
matrixmann: (Default)
Originally posted by [personal profile] matrixmann at Erinnerung

Berlin, 17. Juni 1953: Traue nicht deinem Geschichtsbuch.

Berlin, June 17th 1953: Don't trust your history book.


July 2017

     1 2
34 56 78 9
1011 1213 1415 16
17 1819 2021 22 23


RSS Atom


Free counters!

Free counters!
Page generated 25 July 2017 08:44 am