Complex

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: (Thinking)
Warum müssen so viele "only ones" besungen werden?

Why are there so many "only ones" to be sung about?
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Große Ohren kommen,
wenn man meint, dass du das Falsche denkst,
wenn du die falschen Leute kennst,
wenn du dich in den falschen Kreisen herumtreibst,
und Briefe an die falschen Personen schreibst,
wenn man meint, du hast etwas zu verstecken,
eventuell sogar kräftig Dreck am Stecken,
wenn du die falsche Einstellung hegst,
und du die falschen Gewohnheiten pflegst,
die falschen Bücher liest
und die falschen Filme siehst -

Man sagt dann,
du hast dich der falschen Gruppe angeschlossen,
den falschen Lebenslauf beschlossen,
du bist ein Feind unserer Demokratie,
leidest an Megalomanie,
du musst weg, auf der Stelle!
ab in eine dunkle Zelle,
Wir helfen dir wieder ganz zu sein!
zurück zum schönen Schein,
mit Tabletten und leeren Worten
aus allerhand von Sorten -

Was, du willst nicht?!
Ach, wie kann das sein!
Bist du ein dummes Schwein!
Du willst unsere Liebe nicht,
siehst die Dinge nicht aus unserer Sicht
Raus mit dir, verpiss dich!
Mach doch rüber, da versteht man dich!
Ach nein, das geht ja nicht mehr,
und überhaupt, wollen wir deinen Verstand so sehr,
es gibt nur den einen Weg
und zwar den, auf dem wir alle steh'n!

Große Ohren werden kommen
und sie werden dich mitreißen wie eine Welle...
Tritt auf der Stelle,
oder versteh', was um dich geschieht,
wenn sich eine Welt die Wahrheit zurechtbiegt,
wirst du es kaum erkennen,
nichts bewegt sich durch herumflennen
und nichts bewegt sich, wenn du nur herumschreist,
die einen gehen anderen gern auf den Geist,
die anderen lernen bevor sie tun,
und erfahren, es braucht etwas mehr bevor sie ruhen.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
First, there were fights over religion, then it was political ideologies, now it's about which food to eat.
Mankind really is bored like an overdeveloped ape with too much free time on his hands, isn't it?

Games

7 January 2017 08:33 pm
matrixmann: (Ready)
Whenever you keep seeing those big presentations and advertising of soccer events, you get the impression like the vision of a lot of dystopic SciFi authors or movie makers has come true: Shiny and glittering shows for the masses. Superstars to cheer at, heroes to believe in - and in the end, they're all created by some moguls that are kings of the mass media. For the purpose: To direct the view of the common people, to distract them or to get their looks to pay attention to the mass event presented which is not very much different from letting gladiators fight over their lives. They shall yell for their lives, think about nothing else except for that it's been a nice relief from everyday hard work or how they can become gladiators themselves, which they get shown in a way to perceive they're all paid with millions and a carefree life, everything to want and everything to look up at. And, what are they behind the curtains? Not the smartest, not the most moral, not the most honest - just a bunch of tragic figures which fulfill their task, but they're destined to realize only once they become too old to go on with that. Then the nature of their physical plague until that moment becomes obvious even to them.
But until then, new gladiators are found to take their places. And the masses go on yelling... Like, one or the other name, it doesn't matter. It's just some soccer players running for the amusement of some common people. Which somebody intended it for that it shall be this way.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Worin liegt der Schlüssel zur Boshaftigkeit?
...In dem Moment, wenn du begreifst, dass du jemandem oder etwas alles antun kannst, was du willst, und niemand kommt, um dich dafür zu bestrafen. Egal wie grausam, unfair, ekelhaft, pervers, verächtlich oder unmenschlich es auch sein mag.

Wherein lies the key to malignity?
...The moment when you realize you can do anything that you want to anyone or anything and there's no-one coming up to punish you for what you've done. No matter how cruel, unfair, disgusting, perverted, despicable or inhuman it may be.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
What would somebody say who died 10 years ago about the fuss that takes place today?
In politics as well as society as well as technology - how things in general developed during the last decade?
Would he think "the better that I have died, that's even worse than when I was still alive"?
Or would he say "I should have stayed, just to try to make a change in all these things"?
What about somebody who killed himself?
Would he be happy about his deed?
Would he scream in horror how the world has become, compared to 10 years ago?
What would his words be about Facebook, about streaming, about the current state the world is in - the economical crisis, the West's fight with Russia, the war in Syria, Libya, newly grown information sources that didn't exist back then?
Also, what would he say about culture, about current trends? About the rise of German Schlager, the dropping in the background of Hiphop, the rise of softened Electro House and the current remake mania in Hollywood?
What would he say if he heard that now it's a trend for the lost youth to travel to the Middle East and play "Call Of Duty" for real - voluntarily?

Sometimes it would be better if someone was alive again who didn't follow all these developments, just to give you a more distanced opinion, free from the political correctness of today, free from the frames and shapes which society and public likes to think in during current times.
Having been gone opens a door to potentially give you new ideas. Ideas you wouldn't have if you talked to somebody who's a child of his time and narrow-minded as the current episode is.
Too long ago may become a problem as the changes over 20 and 30 years or more are too huge for someone to comprehend in a small amount of time. There would be the danger of becoming overwhelmed by impressions.
Many things changed in a longer episode of time.

But even during the last 10 years, you have some things which totally took a major development, while you have others where you would say "business as usual". Nothing has changed.
The stupification of mankind hasn't stopped, quite the opposite, it has increased. Through the invention of smartphones and social media shifting from a text-based to a photo- and video-based issue. Bullying and mobbing hasn't vanished from the face of the earth, its results only have become quieter and no-one talks about it anymore loudly. Children themselves don't take a gun into their hands anymore nessecarily to make it known.
Adults don't have more time for their offspring, they even whip themselves some more and force themselves onto their place of work.
Poverty didn't disappear. And the rich have even grown richer than they used to be.
The only thing that maybe has become different, making an interesting change in the pack of cards, that keeping secrets has become more critical for the states. Not only is it more of an importance for them to survive than before, but also the means to do it need to scatter because it is more likely that somebody might get something out and show it to the public. Not all people entrusted with confidential information still agree on or are convinced of keeping their secrets anymore.
Also, there has grown an echo chamber which specialized in picking these things up and spread it as their own propaganda, just like you're used to it from the notorious usual suspects.
This changes the game of what to believe and what not to believe.

Someone who died earlier and was sick of this system might find its joy with the new circumstances...
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
"Your unconditional basic income is a nice idea, but here's the flaw in your system: It reestablishes how the old social benefits worked, but it doesn't change anything on the factor "prices". As well as that it doesn't change those facts that still each year it's the goal of all national economies to impress each other by proving how much percentage they can compile in attaching zeroes to the sums of the last year ( = GDP) and that the economy it ought to function in only can keep itself up by generating lots of fictional money that doesn't exist out of credits it didn't hand out to one customer, so it's whole self-asserted "growth" is nothing more than multiplying the sums that have originally been there before a few hundred, a few thousand years ago. In other terms: Not only you keep adjusting the sum each year, you also don't change anything that makes it so nessecary that this basic income needs to exist at all. You only make the circumstances takeable again. But that because you don't really know what you're trying to fight when you talk about "overcoming capitalism".
You're still one of those dreamy starry-eyed idealists that don't know how the world they live in really works."
matrixmann: (Thinking)
In the end, all that remains of you is...

...a person in a photograph.
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Why do people make the traditional Muslim dresses a dithering question of "religious freedom" and "culture clash"?
A resolute solution to these questions is rather simple: Treat it with equality.
If it's a trouble in official positions if somebody wears such dresses and pieces of clothes, say: "I don't care if you wear a baseball cap, a cowboy hat, a fishing hat or whatever the fuck - here in this position all people ought to wear no headdresses."
Besides, if authorities are constrained to represent neutrality towards every kind of people, beliefs and political worldviews, then it's not only Muslims that should not wear religious signs, it's also Christians which can't wear a cross while on duty. Or can I wear my goth clothes while serving people in the registry office?
In school, there also used to be a time where I wasn't allowed to wear headdresses, the teacher would take them from me for the class or send me outside and put them into the wardrobe. Sunglasses on - well, if I had a certificate of a doctor saying so that I'd need them. Maybe somebody who's blind they'd never speak up against.
Jackets - only in winter if you said you feel cold. With an ordinary old school teacher - no wearing of your trenchcoat mafia memory dress in class!
So, why the hell screaming out that loud and discussion rounds and rounds about "Are we allowed to touch this? We mess with religion, people!"?
You also hurt the religious feelings of a Jedi if you tell him he can't wear his dress!
But you fucking put him under the term "screwball" and tell him he should integrate to the reality!
Are these feelings less worth than those of a member of a recognized religion?
In political views, it's even worse: Every Marxist gets regarded as "someone who looks at things the wrong way" and as enemy of the state. But let some openly expressing Nazi come, nobody's gonna say a word!
Respect only for those who we want?! What the fucking kind of "human rights activists" are you at all?! You're busy with erecting those dogmas again that your ancestors have been busy with tearing down during the last 100 years!
Some people get witch hunt - some get special protection. Just fucking be honest and tell the world it's not about protecting anyone's feelings about religion or looking at the state of the world, it's about fear, being a coward, and putting back up an age where everything you do is ruled by religions and not by human common sense!
Just fucking tell the world it's about establishing again "those people are different from us, that's why they live seperated from us and they're no part of our class war - they're free to be ignored or killed"!
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Not all specimen extend to bloom.
In nature, there always grow more than survive in the end.
Well, if mankind achieved to keep them all alive, in conclusion... what did it actually accomplish at all with it?

Madman

17 April 2016 07:41 pm
matrixmann: (Thinking)
What makes you a madman?
Does it make you one if you abandoned the hesitation to kill, to slit peoples' and animal throats, to survive, to have food or just to protect someone you hold dear?
Does it make you a madman if you feel no remorse, if you think that was right?
Does it make you a madman if you do that for money or on your own behalf?
Does it make you a madman if you call other humans "sheep"? If you dehumanize them and get your distance to judge them?
Does it make you a madman if you abandon emotions and if you regard everything through the lens of a rational mind?
Does it make you a madman if you decide to make decisions for others - what you think is best for them?
Does it make you a madman if you doubt the adulthood of the community?
Are you insane if you throw all that to their faces what they have suppressed just to buy a superficial hypocritical peace - that ends when all turn their backs on everyone?

Does it make you a madman if you cut the word "scum" into your arm and show it to the world like a trophy?
Does it make you a madman if you commit a crime while being intoxicated by psychosis and seeing stars?
Does it make you a madman if you kill someone while being in delusion and thinking you have seen Christ?
Does it make you a madman if you decide over the life of a few thousands through the wisp of a pen?
Does it make you a madman if you play with guns and feel joy with it?

Does it make you a madman if you jump off a skyscraper?
Does it make you a madman if you got blood on your hands and celebrate to not wash it away?
Does it make you a madman if you beat up the one who tortured you for your life?
Does it make you a madman if you know how to build explosives from simple household utensils?
Does it make you a madman if you consume culture and feel something totally different with it than the most?

Does it really need to be a butcher to be mad?
Does it really only need beastiality?
Does it really only need coldness and aloofness? Blood and guts?
Isn't it also madness if the mood of one can terrorize a whole area?

What qualifies you for the title?
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Why does someone feel the need "to protect all the babies"?
Why does someone see the need to protect someone that he doesn't know - that he will never get to know and that he doesn't care about apart from only his purpose?
Doesn't he see that, when all people that were conceived in a developed country would survive and grow old, that the population number was far higher in his state and that the battle for resources, for places to live, jobs, food, water, electricity, fossil fuels and health care services, would become far tighter than he is used to it currently?
Doesn't he see that most of the population that benefits from abortion and contraception measures is the poor class that is able to spare it to themselves to care for children which they couldn't feed?
Would that be a desirable state for him if the world was overgrown with poor people?
Would that be a desirable state for everyone if the world was overgrown with people - which you don't know how to feed, how to supply and where to get the resources from for their needs?
Why would you get upon the idea to feed them, you ask?
Why would you be so stupid to risk a scenario in which billions of people stand against your class with not even a billion in number?
Are you that eager and confident you would survive this if it came to battle?
Whether you want it or not, the poor people born will always long for resources and try to get access to them, just like you do. And they will always manage to achieve this in parts.
So - do you plan on colonizing another planet earth that is not in sight just to keep this demand for energy at bay that it won't threaten your comfortable wealth, or do you finally see why there needs to be some reason in this topic?
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Is mankind damned to remember the palaces erected on behalf of the nobles and rich, not the many workers that built those things?
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Did capitalists think for a second - what if when they made all state property theirs? How do they increase their piece of the cake still then? What do they want to put on top of that? Going to space?
What if discovering and exploiting space still is impossible? What if if you have to be content with the resources you find on the earth?
What if if you can't go to the depths of the ocean if there are still no technical means for that business, or they overstep the profits you wanted to make?
What do you seriously do if you have conquered the last area, the last territory on earth, to increase your stack of richness that you have?
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Individualism, lived with a certain seriousness, turns out to be a burden.
Sitting on a fence, as they call it, you're neither fish nor fowl, finding somebody to talk only sometimes develops into a real obstacle that is not as easy to solve.
Most humans have their asserted groups they feel loyalty to, and they follow them, more or less, just by the book. The only ones you get corrupted to adapt some to their own from another one's set of articles of faith are those ones which reach for money and richness. As money doesn't have opinions on things of life, it itself is the opinion to a set of things.
But assumed, you don't move inside a category where money can help you, it is like being a Martian trapped on planet earth and it is full of simple morons. You are from a space that they fail, most of the time, to get and to understand life is much more dynamic than they like to imagine.
What contradiction is there to be a gun friend, but on the other hand talk like a leftist?
What contradiction is there between finding giving a lot of freedom, but on the other hand putting the rich into chains, so they not fuck up the public order by unrestrained behavior?
What doesn't make it suit together to be not supportive unconditionally towards every influx from other countries, but not carrying a Nazi flag with you or go to Bible study?
What, especially as a German, makes you be "Michel" if you don't act the blind-trusting member of the 1968 generation?
It seems like people have hardened fronts and narrowed minds in their heads and through this lens they judge everything critically that they get to see. They don't look for anything being different from what they know, they look for pressing everything into a given form and that is the way they understand everything as what they meet. - Be it those explicitly not calling for something other than their own or be it those which claim they want to hear differing opinions.
In between you find yourself, if you don't agree with neither one of these groups, and think like it's time to get insane - because you cannot bear it to be confronted with this stubbornness. Let alone the reactions if you start to pour out what you really think and they don't know where to put you and regard this as an aggressive act.
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Change to the concept needs to be laid down in time, otherwise it might be possible that time overtakes and it will be too late.
Many empires didn't recognize that point, even fought back against it. Who says that this cannot happen again? Who says everything that is known today still will be known in a hundred years? Who says that breakdowns which happen every few centuries cannot happen today anymore?
Who says that all people involved are that smart to avoid that?
There was a time where European countries fought against each other and longed for superior power in the the continent. The European project that is known today which finds its roots after WWII is a stark contradiction to that behavior. Who says they can't fall back to that through certain disputes that couldn't be agreed on a solution?
Who says that a country with a history only up to 250 years old, not counting the several inner disputes in between, could not suddenly break apart?
Who would have thought that affinities that lasted for hundreds of years suddenly would end in growing enmity only because of interferences of external powers that barely know anything about the history of that places?
Can someone really predict what'll happen to the world as you know it these days?
Nothing of that is written. Everything stays in a dynamic, and the more people exist the more the spiral of conflicts and changes seems to spin faster into a development that its original creators didn't mean to come so soon that they could still experience it.
They try to think that they can build a kingdom that outlasts at least their lifetime so they can build a nice existence garnished with privileges and securities that guarantee them a living in the lap of luxury.
But they underestimate the driving force behind their luxury and what it brings to all other people which can't live by that standard.
The misery they generate with their way of living and the disagreements these oligarchs even have among themselves creates the atmosphere of hate, turmoil, which creeps closer to end their existence.
If they like to stay caught up in this collision on interests, try to sit it out, it will be hate they sowed themselves which will overwhelm them - once more, like the immobility struck down the former enemies of these interest groups.
matrixmann: (I see with the eyes of a hunter)
Things are based upon other things. You need a careful eyesight to spot what's beyond it.
Life is a complicated structure and no linear process that proceeds through time.
Also its beings are no linear structures that always develop the same way and take the same paths.
But even despite that natural diversity, it doesn't mean they don't have certain things in common.
What lies beyond their complicated structures reveals to you what they all share.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Leftists bemoan about the lack of will for unity among people, and them being and acting too seperated to be able to cause a change within the system.
But - what if that is a wish that is not possible anymore? What if the process of individualization that has taken place over decades has made them too different to be united unterneath a single claim?
Or, at least, if it has divided them in mentality and reality so much that it first requires work as long as the individualization process to overcome these trenches?

July 2017

M T W T F S S
     1 2
34 56 78 9
1011 1213 1415 16
17 1819 2021 22 23
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Statistics


Free counters!

Free counters!
Page generated 25 July 2017 08:45 am