Wartime

A phenomenon typical of this time episode: Perceiving everything and nothing through the filter of one’s political and one’s general world view. Every event that happens is being tried to make it fit into one’s personal agenda, even without making sure before if the factual situation actually allows it or suits.

Everyone is literally busy with vomiting their litanies and rants in another person’s face, whether demanded or not - those ones which they already had to offer before and tried to push through on other occasions, but which obviously weren’t convincing enough before, so they need to try another time to make them appear valid.

And it more and more happens even against the background of claims not applying to a certain event or subject. It increasingly isn’t important anymore if the content of the litanies and rants as well as the proclaimed “cures” actually are relevant or have a connection to the debated item.

That feeling when watching anything on TV and having to see the tons of advertising in commercial breaks and finding that they’re an accumulation of trash for the mind, designed with lots of distracting bright colors that call for your attention and empty suggestive messages, even direct unrealistic bullshit content (take the whole cosmetics and “body care” sector as an example for that) - will this ever end?

The path of the warrior can be quite dreadful.
You see a lot of ugly things, experience a lot of betrayal, witness many changes and storms, and you get to feel humans from their various sides. Positive and negative.
Also... you lose a lot of comrades along the way.
People who fight with you for a similar objective or believe in the word you spread, whether they do that for virtuous reasons or for the same shady ones that originally brought you to the battlefield.
They die in battle, they change sides, they split off from your horde because you don’t fight for the right subjects anymore, or they leave because they themselves have abandoned the path of honesty, or they get so severely wounded during the war, so that they can’t go on with the road they have chosen. Also, they might meet a guy/girl in between and settle down because that fulfills them with something that feels larger than continuing a fight whose end cannot be foreseen.

Continuously, along the way, depending on how well it goes, how bad the losses are and who leaves you while carrying on, you keep asking yourself the question whether the path is worth it.
Whether the target of the path is truly worth all you sacrifice for it.
Whether the efforts all pay off, judged by the results you get.
And if it’s practically and morally justified what you do.

Weren’t there other means to achieve the same goal - or something comparable?
Was it necessary to agree to such an ascetic lifestyle?
Could the same ideals be won with fewer losses?
Was everything that had to be done, from your point of view, necessary?
And, at all... do you still continue with the path because of the origins you started it with or did your motives change in between - change into something that more has to do with habit and playing a role voluntarily? Because, meanwhile, you know nothing else what to do with your life?

All that for justifying a continuation before yourself and in front of other people who pose that question to you... For telling you, you’re on a path that feels right to you.

Looking down on the graves of those that have been lost during the war - comrades, civilians, enemy soldiers, innocent victims of the violence, children, even villains -, through the many numbers of them, points the fork whether it’s been enough dead people already or whether their deaths shall not have been in vain...

The path of the warrior itself can be the warning memorial to this mass of devastation - to these existences ended, to the lives spun and twisted along it, to human madness and all the worst abilities and character features mankind can display, to the austerity you have to endure and force upon yourself for it, and to the lasting loss of trust other than in yourself.

A thing that communism in the past definitely didn’t achieve - and which you could consider a task to rack one’s brains about for its adaption to the modern days and to the future: Freeing humans from the need to go working and earning money in order to finance a living.
Communism made the conditions of working takeable, even partly comfortable, for the workers, but it didn’t develop answers for a scenario when the workers won’t be needed anymore - when machines become fully able to replace them or when tasks are finished and needs for goods are covered for a while.
Last but not least, it didn’t develop an idea for when the point in time will be hit that the earth’s human population increases to such numbers that the enhancement of production won’t be good for the nature of the planet anymore as well as there will be no increase in workforce anymore proportional to the population growth because it isn’t needed for covering the demand of goods and services. (Or, in other words: Communism contains no idea what to do in case of human overpopulation - when children start getting born for which there is no task in society waiting for them when they’re grown up.)
If you still base a society upon everybody having a job to do grocery shopping and maintaining a place to live, then this is a major flaw when it comes to the future awaiting mankind now in the 21st century - overpopulation and ecological disasters.

A strong disadvantage of long-lasting peace is that, should anything happen which makes this come to an end, barely anybody knows how to fight and drive back the forces who've broke it. Peace has become a divine-given daily self-evidence - and the loss of it marks a huge trauma.
Not just that humans have no mental resources to handle and process that - they'll also be run over by the first and even most ill-equipped gang that comes along the way.

Slut - what actually makes out a "slut"?
Is it the many partners he/she had intercourse with?
Is it the many people which he/she let touch his/her body, kissed?
Is it the style according to which he/she does all that?
Or just if he/she does it thoughtlessly - not making much selection between the people he/she does it with? Not taking care of protection from unwanted mother-/fatherhood/transmittable diseases?
What exactly is it that makes a person "slutty" compared to other people?

Socially, there are two standards for measuring: One originates from the interpretation of the term as "sloppy". Doing things sloppy and unfinished, or finished badly and not thoroughly enough, not taking enough care about one's looks and literally neglecting one's outside appearance.
The other definition originates from moral decay - acting hedonistically, selfishly, recklessly and ruthlessly. Primarily measured by one's mating behavior, including sexual intercourse.

So to say, by those definitions, a "slut" is a person which dresses and behaves trashy, whose self-respect is lowered, which acts too carelessly, doesn't invest too much energy into one thing, lives hastily and tends to flee from things after they don't give the right dosage of satisfaction anymore - "sluts" also tend to pickup the most in life regardless of if they'd be morally permitted to or not, rather than giving anything back in return.
In other words, "parasite", on the whole, would rather be a better synonym than just "someone who is promiscuous".

Tolerance and acceptance of promiscuity are cultural issues; Christian religion sanctioned it over centuries and linked it with shame, installing the one-partner-at-a-time exclusiveness that is still common in most of the world's areas.
This hasn't always been this way - this is a matter, a standard, which can be shifted and made to change again, just like it could be shifted to the standard that still is prevalent today. It is not unchangeable.
In earlier centuries more, but still of some relevance in the modern times, it had its practical purpose in order to create more safety for an individual's health and in order to prevent too much intra-familial incest - as the only safe contraception and block to diseases which spread by sexual intercourse for the general populace was simply not doing it.
Partner-exclusiveness through marriage and loyalty to its basic principle meant, two at the same time, that diseases couldn't spread that wildly (that is: if one was sick, he could only pass it on to one other person) and that children in a small community couldn't be that many half-siblings from both mother- and father-family-bloodline among themselves which they never got to know about until they chose a partner inside the community and had one unhealthy child after another with each other.

Today, technically, the need for this measure doesn't exist anymore. It's a question of money, of having access to as much contraception means as one needs for his/her lifestyle, and of human laziness to take care of it or not. Maybe of taboo - in certain circles - and of general sex education in certain proportions still too.
So... that entirely making out a "slut's" behavior is like an artificial standard now. And this needn't be exclusively limited to females.
There are ways meanwhile to practice promiscuity safely.

So... what is there else?
Maybe if he/she practices it without taking care of his/her own and their partner's physical integrity? If the person behaves irresponsibly against better knowledge and against the means available to him/her?
If a woman has three children from three different men differing in not so many years of age - if a man fathered 3 children with 3 different women during the same few years, for example?
If a couple keeps begetting a baby every year to keep their social benefits?

...Easier it is to answer if sticking to the definition of "doing one's job sloppily". Or with the circumstance of neglecting oneself's appearance fully voluntarily.
'Cause a job done badly doesn't always have anything to do with morals, which can be shaped individually and don't have to be objective. Disregard of personal hygiene or overacting in it in a perverted twisted way can follow a subjective pattern that doesn't have to be factually correct, but to a certain minimal extent, it also has an objective core which moving beyond may end up turning harmful for oneself as well as other people.
In other words: It's easier to find a common base and that doesn't always need to have to do with an individual's personal perspective.
Some negative personality traits, or behavior, just tends to cause always trouble, no matter where the individual pops up which shows them. And there even is more than subjective way to feel to it to perceive it like this.

So... what remains at the end of this?

There's more than meets the eye in one's current filter bubble if thinking things through more widely...

Strange with photographs it is these days: They look like being made only yesterday, although factually they're already years old. The content they show, for long, is true no more...

(Chronische) PTBS ist...

...wie sich in einem hohen, dunklen Turm zu verkriechen, in den die Sonne nicht hinein scheint, und nie wieder herauszukommen.


(Chronic) PTSD is...

...like holing oneself up in a tall, dark tower which the sun doesn't shine into and never ever leaving the structure again.

Imagine the world as an endless building that constantly keeps building up, piling up bricks and building material.
Simple structures make the start, but turn to complex systems over time.
And even complex systems develop many branches that are hardly to survey anytime.
Experience gathers, information gathers, memories (both silent and actively present) gather.
That's why this process keeps happening...
Until someone might give it a closure through total destruction of everything that commits this process.

Everyone who would want to make an attempt for a change to human civilization or his own cultural norms should better regard it like that 'cause that's why past things and circumstances can't be reconstructed and rebuild the same way they once used to be. Ideological purity as desired can't be maintained over all epochs - simply because things keep changing. New things add, some things drop from the boat.
Purity would mean to regard these innovations with a mindset that doesn't suit making a judgment over these things, that's completely unable to do so, or it would mean to totally ignore it and by that ignoring the signs of the time, changes inside the building that constantly piles up.
So to say, it would mean to try to conserve a construct of circumstances and influences for all eternity, which isn't possible in a world that's subject and slave to a circle consisting of birth and death.
People that are responsible for the world of yesterday won't naturally exist forever, so their world and thoughts on it don't do so too. So also purity can't be maintained forever.
Wake thought and mind is what better controls the stream of ideology - 'cause it makes ideology keeping up to date with problems that appear and with developments that unfold.
This doesn't even mean a betrayal to a cause or club 'cause as long as the general path, the general thinking pattern, remains the same structure, it isn't like someone has left the path he has assigned himself to before. He just bows down to the process of how things work in general: A building that constantly keeps piling up, creating new structures here and there, dropping old styles, not continuing some of these new branches, continuing some of the old ones with new components.

Famous quotes - who really knows they've been authored by the people they get attributed to?
Who can really say it's that what they meant? That what they thought?
And - who can say if they weren't a bit naive and really that wise?
Who knows at all if they totally personally were that what they get regarded as these days - decades, centuries, even thousands of years after they have lived?

With what certainty do people use them for brightening up their lives?
Are they afraid of something?