Wartime

The paradox that’s confusing about age and time still continuing to pass later as an adult may probably lie in being physically grown up yourself and therefore the mind subconsciously assumes a general state of preservation and stagnation about the world from then on.
But, when being confronted with children, teens and young adults, for which physical and mental development - and through that: change - noticeably takes place, the brain of an already physically grown-up person is consciously being reminded that things ain’t so. That time still passes, growing older still is in effect and that major, not small, changes still happen.

Thinking deeper about it, there is a little aspect to point out which surely won’t be irrelevant to the protests against the Covid vaccinations and the conspiracy theories surrounding them all around the world - and in which, bizarrely, these have something in common with the “Fridays For Future” movement:

It’s that if a civilization reached such technological, scientific and cultural heights and masses of general means and gadgets that it starts to forget the very base it stands on.
It takes the safe bubble it created to live in as self-evident and as the original state of nature.
While actually it’s the most unnatural state of things. And you have to do something for it in order to exist.

For example: The effect of vaccines first becomes noticeable if they weren’t given anymore.
If masses of people didn’t receive them.
As vaccines against the famous diseases you can vaccinate against didn’t exist, people died way earlier than today, they died of way more trivial causes, a lot died before they got 18 years old (high rate of child mortality), and people who survived infections with either a virus or bacteria way more often carried lasting damages away from this (often: early childhood) encounter into their adult lives.
This is still the case in places on the earth where these vaccines aren’t available or too expensive for an average person to get.
So when they were invented and people realized infants as well as themselves stopped getting sick and die from those diseases after they were vaccinated, people became clear of a reason to do this for. - No more getting sick, suffering and dying from crap that can be avoided.

A huge example that people of all ages have a personal benefit from is the tetanus vaccination.
Before that, just a single scratch could lead to this type of infection, which in the end paralyzes the nerve tissue that controls muscles in the body and leads to death.
And it’s barely avoidable as the bacterium that causes it lives in nearly everything. It’s everywhere around you.

So so-called “skepticism” and active refusal and even claims like “vaccination is murder” are actually a call to fall back to these circumstances among the population.
How can anyone be so stupid to want that?
Well, the best answer to this is: Because people aren’t aware of why they can lead such a cozy life. Lack of basic education and a lot of manipulative info from sources that function no better than hocus pocus magical crap made to make money that was sold to people in the Middle Ages are to blame for this.

In common with “Fridays For Future” this state of the mind has: Also the members and agitprop activists of this movement aren’t aware of what the order they raise their claims on comes together from.
For example, they take for granted that smartphones exist, that the internet and their platforms to communicate on globally exist, that they live a life on earth where they don’t need to mind neither money nor material if they get sick of something and can simply throw it away as they please.
But all that first needed to be invented, then needs to be fabricated constantly and then needs to be maintained constantly.
Electricity isn’t produced by the wall because the wall is kind of bored and doesn’t know what to do with its time. It’s produced in a power plant, that power plant needs any type of “fuel” or gizmo that moves another gizmo, whose movement generates the electric energy in the end that they take from the wall socket at home. And that needs to be done constantly, not just whenever you want. - Or you’ll have to accept that electric energy isn’t constantly ready to use.
Means of saving energy for later aren’t invented yet, and as it it looks it will be like with rechargeable batteries: It ain’t lossless and the energy saved will vanish over time when not using it. - Unless you’d save the energy compressed in something material that you can easily store and backlog (that would be fossil fuels like coal, gas and petrol, for example).
Not to forget: A power plant producing electric energy first needs to be built in order to serve the purpose to supply you with electricity in the wall socket.

The self-evidence of the presence of the internet is another issue of that umbrella.
The internet comes together by thousands of servers (and, in a simple sense, “computers”), interconnected with each other, running 24/7 all around the year. If you think that you can only switch these on when you need them, then most of the time nobody will be able to read your crap.
Because these computers keep masses of data ready to access for whoever wants to read them at any time of the day. - All the viewers that checked your stuff in the meantime you slept, worked or were at school, they could do that because someone else keeps your data ready and accessible all the time.
If your data didn’t lie on someone else’s server, you’d have to keep your own computer plugged to the net all around the clock, even when you’re absent and not at home, or nobody could read the crap that you post and pay attention to you.

Thousands of computers running at the same time, waiting for somebody to seek a connection with them with his personal computer or cell-phone - anyone who isn’t stupid gets an idea what kind of huge effort that is to keep up every day?
The internet isn’t “simply there”, it’s a complex infrastructure, like a net of tarred roads that you can comfortably drive on, and to be “there”, it needs to be made to come into existence.
Another thing that you have to keep ready to use and cannot just switch on and off whenever you want to use it yourself. The effort made in order to keep it up has to be constantly the same at all times or it won’t work as well as you know it.

Not even to get started on the third example: Their own lifestyle and the lifestyle of the family they live in...
Their parents go to work daily, in most cases don’t share a car because they’ve got to go to two completely different places, their parents don’t work near their home but in other towns and commute, they want to make it to buy a nice house, own a big car, save money so each of their kids can have a driver’s license and an own car as soon as the kids are legally permitted to drive, want 1 or 2 family vacations each year at least - and they don’t want their kids to miss any trend in order to not be socially excluded among their peers.
Last but not least, they also try to save up money from anywhere, on top, to send their kids to university (like university wasn’t something which you have to have the brains first and you can’t tell that from the first day of a child’s life).
All that until the kids get “aware” (their “Fridays For Future”-type of getting “aware”).
Anyone of them who pointed it out to themselves how much of an ecological footprint that already is until they reach “awareness”?
And that’s not even counting their own behavior in this calculation...

Reduced and collected in a short summary that is: No, kiddo, you’re not going to save the world now by going vegan, eating meat-replacement made from soybeans, peas and wheat!
Which, by the way, doesn’t reduce your footprint very much if they actually come from Brazil, like the beef steaks you ate before. (Anyone who praises the meat-replacement products asked where the substance they’re made of comes from?)

And, talking about “recycling”, how about that you wear the clothes of your elder siblings that are still alright - like poor people do?
Or that you use a technical gadget for 10 years or more? Repair it? Tinker around with it, so it can still be of service with new technical standards? Use it until it literally falls apart?
“Learn from the poor” is the correct motto in this issue, just as a reminder, not holding big public speeches and claim whatever the heck comes to your mind from adults how they shall behave.

By the way, skipping school to march on a rally - do these kids have any idea what kind of privilege they throw away thoughtlessly for just a little stomp on the ground of their inconsistent minds?
Kids in Africa and India and whatever places on earth not as rich as the first world dream of going to school instead of having to go to work and already earn some, so the family, including them, has something to eat and doesn’t need to freeze.
School is like the key to a better life, to more life quality and to a better job - and these kids take it so much for granted that they think they can spare it!!
Not even to speak of that they seem to think school without paying hundreds of bucks for it is a world standard!
If their rallies had a connection to something that went wrong in school, but no... it’s about “pointing the adults at doing something to stop climate change”.
Like - next time they go on a strike because the pocket money is too low...

This is social relations, making a plea, not doing something for a certain objective.
And then formulating one’s plea on a pretty high niveau of prosperity. Leaving one’s own role aside, acting like one doesn’t exist and does nothing wrong, but only all other people.

...You see how both have a similarity here?
Avoiding to mind one’s own base of a living, sect-like structures that want to make everyone convert, but they have very few to really say if you check them in the details.
If you fact-check them or check for doability, you find them two live in a dreamy world made of soap bubbles. Harboring an image of the world that doesn’t correspond with the reality.

When do you encounter such phenomena?
Mostly when a civilization is almost at its end. When people forget what their life as they know it is based on and take it for granted that they can eat grapes all day long (figuratively). And, on the other hand, can afford to dive deep down into their human interactions all day long. Be busy with the “he says, she says” and what is the correct way to worship and appreciate whatever the heck.
Act like their human quarrels are the most important thing in the world, like someone is watching and only waiting to interfere and deliver them from their anger towards each other.

(Someone discovers similarities in this description too?)

Why “deconstruction”? Why steadily the need to “deconstruct”, just to deconstruct?

Wouldn’t it be better to, at least, deconstruct in order to construct something new again - by adding new elements or putting the old ones in a new order? To deconstruct for a purpose and not just... because there’s nothing else to do - or because being the subject to things you cannot or couldn’t control in the past makes you scared for some bizarre and vague reason?

Letzte Woche kam Söder, jetzt kommt Königin Schwesig - warum machen eigentlich nicht alle Bundesländer demnächst, was sie wollen?!
Je weiter die Daumenschrauben ohne Sinn und Verstand angezogen werden, desto mehr wird sich Querdenken im Frühling freuen über so viel neuen Zulauf - nicht, weil die Leute nicht an Corona glauben oder den Ballweg so toll finden, sondern weil sie von dem ständigen Hin und Her und der Drangsaliererei der Länderchefs (ohne ihr Parlament!) gründlich die Schnauze voll haben!!
Statt ständig neuer Maßnahmen und Verschärfungen (Haben wirklich alle Deutsche einen Fetisch mit "Härte", dass das rhetorisch ständig so betont werden muss?! Erzählt doch nichts!!), wie wäre es denn mal, wenn ihr endlich mit eurem Impfstoff auf dem Mustopf kommt?!
Wochen- und monatelang wurde vom Heiland geschwärmt und die Erlösung versprochen - jetzt ist sie da und ihr Schnarchnasen vermasselt es, euch rechtzeitig Impfdosen vorzubestellen!!
Bei dem Tempo, was Deutschland bei seinem Impfprogramm an den Tag legt, da ist man ja in Jahren noch nicht fertig! Selbst die Schneckenpost ist schneller!!

Es ist wirklich symptomatisch für dieses Land - außer Niedriglohn, Ausbeutung und billiges Schweinefleisch, was können die hier noch? Keinen Bahnhof kriegen sie fertig, keinen Flughafen gebaut, keinen Breitbandausbau gemacht, keinen Fernunterricht organisiert, keine Schulabgänger ausgebildet und eingestellt, die Wälder fackeln ihnen im Sommer ab - und sie fliegen immer noch mit einem militärischen Frachtflieger, der ein halbes Jahrhundert alt ist, weil sie keinen anständigen Nachfolger flugtauglich gemacht kriegen.
Wenn nicht ausländische Firmen ihnen noch eine Gaspipeline bauen würden, würden sie das auch nicht hinbekommen...
Ihre Kinder verlöden lassen, das können sie - weil sie sie schon früh vor das Smartphone parken. Weil westdeutsche Politik beim öffentlichen Bildungswesen seit den 80er Jahren kontinuierlich abbaut.
Warum fehlen da die Fachkräfte? Na? Schuld eigene!!

Ein marodes Land, was auf äußerst wackeligen Füßen steht.
Durch die Corona-Pandämie wird es eigentlich nur noch deutlicher, dass sie bis jetzt großes Glück hatten, dass nicht irgendwer oder irgendetwas mal einen scharfen Wind auf diese porösen Stelzen losgelassen hat! Wenn dort nämlich mal ein gehöriger Fön bläst, dann fällt das Kartenhaus in sich zusammen...
Und alle 80+ Millionen sitzen mittendrin.
Fabelhaft!

A myth that gets spread inside the West at least since Hollywood acquired a decisive international position and since people look up to whatever comes from its dream factory: The myth of the “only one”.
There’s one person out there in this world to be “yours”, to love you, to serve you, to fulfill your wishes, to aim for the same goal like you, to sail through good seas and difficult seas with you not leaving your side, and which will stay with you for the rest of your life, no matter what happens...

As reality started to change, as human life in the Western world became faster and people became more and more focused on consuming, as well as became more and more very individual, changing as personalities a couple of times throughout life, a small deduction from this ideal was made in terms of changing that dream to a “cohabitant”, which just stays for an undefined amount of years by your side, but very probably not for the rest of your whole life. - The slash in the timeline that they call “when people began to divorce more often”.
As well as when same-sex relationships became publicly tolerated and not prosecuted anymore.

But one basic principle throughout all these changes in human relationships remained the same: There’s just one person out there to love you and to be with, not two, three or more.
Just ONE.
One person to be intimate with, one person to be the most deeply emotional with, one person to lie in bed and sleep with. Anything else is associated with “dirt”, with being a slut and dragging shame onto one’s name. Leading relationships with more than one person at the same time also easily gets associated with “you do it with everyone who isn’t quick enough to run away from you”, implying an increased sexual neediness, which is, again, associated with different sorts of judgment over the specific person and its character, such as human poorness, a lack of taking care of oneself, lacking personal pride and self-respect, and disloyalty.

Although meanwhile there are means to prevent diseases from spreading through uncontrolled and carelessly having sex with everyone, and means to prevent a woman from possibly getting a child each time she sleeps with a man (as long as she doesn’t make use of a sex technique that prevents semen from entering her vagina), still this dogma from old times keeps being present. It gets used in marketing and in cultural standards - and at least since more Muslims live in the Western world too and bring their custom along with them that up to 4 wives are allowed within the framework of their religion, the refusal and the non-understanding towards relationships between more than two people of a whatever kind of sexual sort increased by a chunk again because it gets considered “alien” to human nature and “inhuman” in emotional terms - for whatever reason - to live one’s life like this.

But, boiled down to the heart of it - what objectivity lies behind all this?
What non-cultural, non-emotional, non-religious reason is there to keep enforcing that illusion, like it is a God-given truth?
Is there actually any at all?

All that what people link with other than a 2-person-relationship are associations that are being shoveled at them and taught to them ever since they were children. Associations that originate in Jewish/Christian religion, that originate in justified fears of earlier centuries and lack of means to put a stop to them effectively, which have been reformed and reshaped over the centuries into more modern forms as religion became lesser and lesser important for a person’s life; even as inventions like condoms and other contraceptives were made and common people allowed to use them.
The only factor that there maybe remains left with some sort of justification, to not let “everyone doing it with everyone higgledy-piggledy” come true is to not produce too many half-siblings which don’t know about each other being such - because incest of whatever kind and genetic sameness proves to be bad for for procreation and leads to increased amounts of birth defects and hereditary diseases.

But - is founding a family and continuing one’s family bloodline the main reason why people come together and form other than platonic relationships?
Or is “family” still just defined by adults procreating children? Haven’t there other forms already come together that generate a similar emotional environment?
Also, through people divorcing way more often throughout their lives, or not marrying at all and getting children even though, isn’t there an increased amount of half-siblings present in a single family through the “patchwork”-model anyway?

So, what reason is it based on to keep this dogma still around and people faithfully believing in it?

One big reason is marketing - because marketing can sell a ton of crap to people then, if they keep looking for that “only one” partner to complete their lives.
People need gadgets, utensils and human services to get pretty to court for each other (e. g. pretty, eye-catching or certain specific clothes, makeup, perfume, hairdressing, manicure, body shaving, coaches for flirting), people need spaces to potentially meet other people in which they will date later (e. g. online dating services, dating agencies, partially also bars and clubs, restaurants for having the date too), people need expensive things to impress other people (e. g. jewelry, expensive cars, a good dress), also they need high-earning jobs in order to leave behind the impression of economic security.

If you keep up that illusion of “there’s one person among millions out there which is destined to end up with you and stay with you forever”, there’s a ton of advantages for this reigning economic system called “capitalism”.
People are going to try to their best to invest in superficial commercial things, people are going to bring in their workforce to earn high status and a big salary - they’re going to aim and stretch for things they can’t reach, but along the way someone else can make a profit from those efforts.
Also, if people just aim for one person, and their heads are filled with illusions about perfection, they’re straight destined to get disappointed by the reality and quickly invest into courting for someone new again. - Which generates new profit for those people whose enterprises sell them the necessary means to enter the new hunt.

If people got down to reducing their expectations, and maybe sometimes accepting that, what they sought to find in just one person alone, to meet it in a couple of people, then this excessive courting would lose a significant reason for it to exist. People perhaps were way more relaxed, didn’t invest these tons of money (they sometimes don’t even have) into crap that’s not gonna secure them the fulfillment they pursue, and they became less judgmental of each other which maybe brings some relationships apart in the first place. Think of excessive jealousy, think of the countless personal definitions what makes out and counts as “cheating”, think of taking possession of a partner’s very life - think of that whole game of either turning or getting turned into a person that you’re not just in order to keep up each other’s expectations towards a relationship.

Investing one’s every power and material in one person is comparable to try to stake everything on one card - very high risk, very much the scenario of possibly losing everything (although you didn’t need to lose it all) and burning one’s hands along with it.
Of course, this provides a situation for adrenaline junkies and for people who are in desperate need of their ego being caressed - because getting the one and winning is very tempting, as it is just that unlikely -, but, realistically speaking, there needs to happen serious contemplation if it is worth accepting that risk every time. All the while as there are many other people out there too and someone can easily quit a relationship if anything about it doesn’t suit for them.
It isn’t the same situation anymore as the potential amount of available partners wasn’t that large because human communities lived farther apart, moving one’s location to a completely different area wasn’t that easy and single individuals didn’t have the modern means to communicate over large distances. So that you were often forced to get along with what you have available locally.

Another factor is: Why do emotional and physical needs always have to be covered in unity?
Who defined that? Who wrote the decree that this has to be the case?
Isn’t the spectrum of possible relationships between humans richer than just that one specific form as the highest form of intimacy, and no other can ever make it to a comparable quality?
Even human psyche is very colorful, can develop into many directions that socially may be considered as “bizarre” - and still there is nearly always a way or at least an ambition to establish tolerance for it.
So, why not also for the idea that you can have several intimate relationships that also include physical aspects?
In the end, some humans have them anyway without anybody of the people involved even knowing about each other (e. g. “ghetto customs of intimate relationships”)... And without spending their life with accepting moral shame.

Little reminder to all adults:

What do you think how kids imagine the world can be changed if they recognize they live in circumstances of systematic disadvantage, if they've been born in times of peace and drastic upheavals, to them, are only a matter they know from history books or tales of their grandparents? What solution you want them to get to if all they know is "obey, make no trouble and you'll be rewarded"?

One's always adapted to the circumstances one has grown up with and is currently surrounded with.
So, if someone asks "why can't you perform X?!" or "why do you do X now?!", then he should keep the thought "What have your parents taught you?" in the back of his head and similar.

When children are small, but in that age to be sparked to question, to ask for things and to research, nowadays parents are too annoyed and too exhausted to meet the needs of those 'cause they've been totally worn out by work life and all the other duties that pull on them beside this that make out the way adults live like.
As soon as they're teens, suddenly their parents and all other adults start to complain about why they have so much fun being stupid and rejecting everything that has to do with school or learning. Also including disobeying the simplest commands and running away from an obstacle or trouble whenever they can.

If someone is annoyed by this himself, he should better ask himself the question: What did I do to make this kid behave like this to me?
When I'm constantly pushed away, how long do I go on fighting for someone to earn his favor?

Children have an intelligence on their own indeed, but they're no malicious creatures by origin.
When they grow older, eventually when they reach the stage of puberty, they only reflect the behavior they have once been treated with in the first decade of their lives. They only adapted to the desires and characters their primary caregivers have imposed on them.
Having finished that first decade, their adaption reaches the professional level and they'd suit perfectly to the needs that their caregivers once pushed them to suit for.
But now the expectations of the outside change again - and that adaption suddenly doesn't suit anymore, after it's become a master of it.
So, when in confusion about that, they show the rest of behavior patterns that they learned from their caregivers and try to get away with it. Eventually, as they were small, those pattens worked too, didn't they?
And now suddenly, our adults and especially parents create a drama about it, like all of that comes out of the blue. Like so much creativity is given to a child by creation to act like this.

If you're disturbed and annoyed by that behavior, better ask: How did you behave to the child as it was in need of you? Were you there? Did you run away, when everything became too much for you? Not enough the fun?
Did you start to scream, just to have your peace? Did you feed your child with food or expensive stuff, so that it leaves you alone? Did you say to him "here, go play with the smart phone"?
Or were you there at all - busy with work most of the time?

If asking about why kids become this way, one needs to look at what is the frame made of they're kept in. Do they get what they need? Are their caregivers able to give them what they need?
Do the caregivers actually have time for giving that to them??
Or are they too exhausted to suit the proper needs to make their child a future professor?

If only put in the position of a parent who can't fight back much against the circumstances pressuring from the outside: Do you really need all that material needs that you took upon your name, paying credits for it and all that? Did you rather want to work on a dreamy story and ignore what the reality is?
Did you think, acting rich on the outside is all what's going to get your kids a better position in the hierarchy? A better life - full of bliss and happiness?

What matters to you when they're small, that's what's going to matter to them in the future when they're about to step into your position.
If you keep pumping crap and the wrong priorities into them, then they're going to reflect them back to you, once they're able to do so without your consent.
And - pay attention, society! - not only your own. Also those wrong priorities that others taught them what is the "human standard".

If developing the idea of mixed school year tuition in school even only on a federal level because there are not enough students to fill the year classes, does that mean you're a rich country?

Und wieder läutet der Tag der dummen Fragen. "Ask a Stupid Question Day" auch in Übersee genannt.

Eine dumme Frage: Wenn ein Vater und sein Sohn jeweils mit der gleichen Frau geschlafen haben, und sie beiden jeweils ein Kind beschert, in welchem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis stehen dann die beiden Kinder zueinander?