Category Archives: Thoughts

ESP – Misconceptions And Frauds

Unfortunately, this subject is very polarising, some people opting for a completely materialistic view and others leaving themselves prey to claims which hold no water (so-called service providers robbing them blind).

The extremes are a matter of either refusing to consider it at all cost, despite being told perplexing stories by sane people with no interest in lying, or wanting to believe just anything, even against one’s better judgement.

Of course, there is the middle path of those who know ESP occurs indeed, yet are equally aware of the mass deception by shysters who trade in illusions.

Which is why I think the following observations are in order.

  1. It’s a series of limited personal experiences, not an ability, or better yet, a profession.

Most people, sceptics included, have had an eerily accurate premonition, the odd dream predicting a future event down to details, or telepathic connection with someone else. What these phenomena tend to have in common is a purpose at that point in time, in the person’s life. Often that purpose is to warn of an incoming danger or prepare them for an unavoidable shock (the unexpected death of a loved one for instance).

The other commonality is that they do not happen constantly (which would be distressing, I imagine).

They are small glimpses into what should be the unknown – the potential future, the life of someone who is estranged etc. They come in grain size, not by the bucket; they are like droplets in an ocean of uncertainty and unpredictability.

Hence, when you hear a flouncy describe her nightly conversations with her spirit guide named Zorg, who tells her everything from the weather to who will get divorced in the neighbourhood, the suspicion that it’s verbal diarrhoea seems correct.

2. It occurs spontaneously, not on demand.

Perhaps a reiteration of the point made above – ESP is not an ability, as this term describes something you can control and use at your discretion.

The limited information you receive arrives unexpectedly when necessary, not as a result of you looking for it (that’s why fortune telling is such BS), let alone demanding it.

There is no unlimited database of the past, present and future people with ESP can tap into at will, to reveal hidden facts about themselves and others. If that were true, nothing would remain a mystery to them. Those who claim to have an access card to such a place, and charge money for a quick peek, are charlatans.

I’m sure many people with good intuition make an honest effort to gauge others’ problems in this manner, yet have no proof of their assertions being anything but a guess.

And I’m sure many who failed at demonstrating their presumed gift in a controlled environment had some genuine phenomenon over the years, yet could not artificially reproduce a natural occurrence. Because it happened to them, as opposed to them making it happen.

3. It is often verified in hindsight.

When someone claims the infallible capacity to predict the future because they’ve done so once or twice, they are mistaken. The only way to verify a prediction is after the fact, which is why people should not become hysterical when someone puts forth apocalyptic views.

The estimated number of daily thoughts crossing someone’s mind ranges between 50 000 and 70 000. Many of them will be irrelevant. Of the many premonitions someone might have, only some stand the test of time, whilst the rest are forgotten. Some will be steeped in subjectivity; their own hopes and fears. Dreams, likewise, can be useful in terms of psychological analysis, yet rarely do they actually reveal crucial information to be used in real time.

Don’t get me wrong, when it does happen it’s something to marvel at – yet that doesn’t mean every dream should be given the same importance a priori.

There are no prophets whose every word should be regarded as likely accurate by default.

4. To my knowledge, there has never been a way to establish where the information comes from.

In other words, we should all beware of those who claim to be in communication with divine beings or aliens, or anything of the sort. Or those who claim their occasional accurate predictions are proof of the existence of some deity.

5. The direct line to Heaven is a scam.

I’ve yet to see a psychic asked to contact a client’s dead relative, to shrug and say “sorry, dear, he wasn’t available”, or alternatively, “sorry, he’s in Hell and they only allow visitors on Saturday morning”. Isn’t it amazing how the departed are always calm and happy, wanting to reminisce about some fishing trip twenty years prior?

A couple were claiming the room was full of the client’s dead relatives, and that they wanted to make contact. It’s funny how it’s only the living who initiate these conversations through a paid medium and the dead, although present in such close proximity, are hapless in terms of communication. If it’s an open line, why don’t the dead ever ask for messages to be passed, of their own initiative? Can’t they afford the fee? No one thinks to ask “honestly; if they’re here all the time anyway, what do I need you for?”

6. The “paranormal” and “supernatural”

These commonly used terms alone are doing the study of this field (parapsychology) an enormous disservice.

They push these phenomena, in terms of common perception, into a realm of oddity and fantasy, when they are in fact very frequent, even if some people only experience them once or twice (notably) over an entire lifetime. That in turn causes them to be rejected as even plausible.

They are not “paranormal” or “supernatural”, they are the normal and natural.

It seriously annoys me to hear anyone claiming to operate in this field throw these words around in order to attract attention or be sensational, as if wanting to feed those around them with cheap thrills.

Ghosts – Misconceptions And Frauds

Throughout time, regardless of location or culture, ghost sightings have been a common occurrence. Phenomena presumed to involve the spirits of deceased people (haunting, poltergeist activity etc) remain of interest, not only to those experiencing them but to the curious in general.

Accounts of these phenomena are extremely interesting, usually connected to places and involving no reason to suspect those giving them of fabrication. They are isolated stories told by people who are not into making careers out of it. If anything, they risk being ridiculed for describing what they’ve witnessed.

Others, however, are set on using this mysterious side of human nature for personal gain, an easy con for centuries. They prey on the thirst for thrills, as well as the grieving, the latter being inexcusable.

Ghost hunting is the practice of observing a location believed to be haunted, in attempts to spot or/and make contact with the spirits thought to be lingering there. Paraphernalia is often used (cameras, motion detectors, devices based on measuring temperature etc). The “instrument” most sought after, however, is a medium, also known as a psychic or channel, claiming to facilitate this communication.

Whilst those reporting a haunting can normally be trusted and those seeking to observe it directly can at least be given the benefit of the doubt, most mediums are full of it.

Moreover, paranormal investigations produced for television, in order to cater to viewers, can be remorselessly suspected of BS. Whilst capturing phenomena on camera does happen, it happens spontaneously, and rarely, if ever, in a scheduled manner; that is just too convenient. The proof found is usually limited to noises and sensations experienced in the area. The chances of it all being staged are very high, even when based on a true story.

Identifying the deceased person

For the sake of keeping it brief by not constantly repeating the words “ghost”, “deceased”, “dead person” etc, let’s just refer to a spirit observed by the living as Bob.

Whereas in some cases people are confident of knowing who Bob is, through some of the things he does (like moving or smashing certain possessions), in most cases, his presence is nebulous and he is connected with the place he manifests himself in, rather than those currently occupying it. He might appear partially, as a shadow, as a vapour, or be downright invisible. He might vociferate but never show any physical traits. Whilst he may inadvertently give clues about his reason to be there, identifying him is very difficult, and likely a result of meticulous research; even then things can’t be certain.

To think that someone can walk right in, off the street, and give an accurate portrayal is not plausible. Mediums are known to make up elaborate stories on the spot.

Making contact

This is presented as the medium calling Bob and expecting a sign; perhaps asking a question or two.

First of all, this is a person, not a house pet. You can’t just whistle and expect him to turn up.There are no guarantees he’s even there in real time, that he hears the medium or that he’s in any way inclined to respond.

Assumptions are made beforehand, due to popular culture:

  • He knows he is dead;
  • He spends all his time at that particular location;
  • He knows he shouldn’t be there and is aware he owes an explanation for his presence;
  • He is aware of the current year and of the people living there;
  • He wants to go elsewhere but can’t for some reason.

There are no guarantees any of these apply.

“Go to the light, Bob, go to the light!”

First of all, Heaven was a religious invention; there isn’t any way to know what lies beyond the material world and where people go after dying, if they go anywhere at all (they might just be here but difficult to perceive by the living). What the medium really means is “piss off”. Whilst many have seen ghosts, no one has ever seen Heaven. James Randi pointed out how funny it is that mediums never try to reach someone who is in hell, or, I assume, likely to go there if “passing on”.

Secondly, let’s assume there was such a place where spirits are supposed to go. Now, if Bob has refused to move on for, say, 300 years, he must’ve had his reasons all along. It’s unlikely that the medium saying “you must go home now”, with self-attributed authority, will suddenly change that.

If he is not aware he is dead (a hypothesis detailed below), saying that is pointless. And if he is aware of his circumstances and options, should there be any, he doesn’t need pointers from the medium; he is there because he wants to be.

Bob the public menace

When Bob interferes with the lives of the living, it is often assumed he is doing it on purpose; some people think ghosts are set on chasing the present occupants away. However, that needn’t be the case. Bob might be experiencing the living in the same manner they are experiencing him (fleeting, blurred interactions which are difficult to make sense of).

Some apparitions have indicated there just might be an overlap between the past and present. For instance, somewhere in the UK, the ghost of a monk was seen walking down a street. The observer only saw the monk’s upper half, and after researching the history of the area, realised the road used to be at a lower level, which would explain why the monk’s legs could not be seen (he was walking on the old road, the old and current scenery overlapping). That was one of the most interesting stories I’ve come across and indicates occasional glitches, as opposed to spirits deciding to haunt a place (which is not to say the latter doesn’t occur).

The same can be said for noises, voices etc inside a house; perhaps the living are simply getting a glimpse of past events, without any interaction per se. Of course, when it comes to poltergeist activity, there seems to be a clear intention, when objects are thrown around for instance. There are cases when people are physically attacked.

Yet lacking any indication of violent intentions, it’s unnecessarily distressing to make assumptions, simply based on Hollywood tropes.

Bring in the priest

When dealing with a haunting, perhaps due to culture or modern horror film narratives, someone might think that bringing in a priest to perform some ritual will make everything stop. If they have indications of – or simply imagine – Bob having suffered a violent death, to perhaps lie hidden in an unmarked grave, they think a service will bring him closure. Hollywood certainly portrays it that way – that merely reciting a few Bible verses can bring peace to the dead.

However, there are no guarantees Bob was ever religious, or that he, in fact, was not killed on the behest of a religious institution in the first place, as many have been throughout the centuries. Imagine doing that for victims of the Inquisition; it might just feel like a spit in the face (if they even become aware of it). I reckon that cross is the last thing they would want to see or be associated with.

And here’s a thought – what if some of the spirits out there, claimed by the religious to be demons for reacting negatively to religious practices, are actually just ghosts who hate the church?

This spontaneous thought calls for some research and a future post on anything I might find.

Mediums freaking out on camera

There are sensationalist programs showing mediums scared half to death in dark basements, squirming and squealing about being touched on the shoulder.

“I talk to the dead on demand; I even let them possess my body to speak through it, but if I think one is near me I scream and run away.” Makes sense, right?

There is one thing I know for sure about ESP – if you’re someone who experiences it regularly, you’re not afraid of it, regardless of how it manifests. You take it as a normal part of life.

Granted that if you reject the idea, you might be negatively impacted by such phenomena. But if you embrace it fully and call yourself a medium, it makes no sense to run for the hills, especially when you seek out such encounters. It’s all done for show.

Given the availability of such material, it would be a shame not to post a cringe-worthy example of poor acting, from those who pretend to contact the dead.

This is one notable instance, organised by BBC 3, of three “mediums” being taken to a chocolate factory to communicate with a spirit. The presumption was they had no information and were obtaining their findings through their so-called abilities. However, it turned out they’d researched the place and were regurgitating the fictitious narrative posted on a website a week prior.

One medium even pretended to go into a trance to obtain the false information. The cringe was at the highest possible level.

 

 

 

 

The Law Of Attraction – Not An Absolute

For many years now, this law has been predicated as the key to ultimate success – attracting positive elements into one’s life by visualising them or reaching certain levels of inner peace.

To an extent, it’s verifiable, as is the reverse – pessimism is likely to keep attracting the negative, perhaps because an individual is unwilling to take steps in the other direction. However, there are limits to this theory, as there are limits to the idea that one chooses which body to incarnate into, which I don’t find particularly plausible.

There are methods of improving one’s chances which apply to anyone anywhere, yet they’re mostly related to physical care or skill development.

Hope also seems to help people stay alive; however, it doesn’t guarantee survival when greater forces are at play, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee the accomplishment of a person’s highest aspirations. There’s a theorising of hope going on at the moment, with systems of rules being developed and paces one must presumably go through in order to successfully apply it. It’s a coping mechanism and raw human emotion, not  an up-the-ladder strategy which is subject to regulation.

  1. This “thriving theory” is aimed at people with a pre-existing level of comfort. A level of subsistence (at a minimum) is necessary.

Whenever I hear a seemingly uplifting video on how life can be turned around through sheer attitude, I can’t help but think of all those who are stuck in famine-stricken countries or otherwise desperate situations they cannot change. I doubt a copy of “The Secret” would make a difference in their lives when they are struggling to subsist. Wishing on it will not fix a draught or a corrupt political regime.

Hence I conclude the theory is addressed to those who are doing well enough in terms of survival, but not well enough compared to their aspirations.

I hear people in conferences, in well-ventilated venues, going on about how each individual should live in order to achieve their full potential. How most people “are doing it wrong”. And I can’t help but think of those in a mud hut or a tent in a refugee camp, unable to access the “life-saving” advice on “how not to do it wrong anymore”.

This cannot be a universal principle if it doesn’t apply to every single person. If “the universe wants you to thrive and it’s all up to you”, why are so many trapped in hopeless situations?

2.An individual is, sometimes, not able to subtract him/herself from the conditions of a community.

Connected to the point above – we often hear that “it’s up to the individual to improve their chances in life through their attitude”. This certainly doesn’t apply to those living under genuine oppression, extreme danger, in war zones etc. An individual can only do so much but cannot help the impact of their environment, not even to the point of guaranteeing personal safety, let alone thriving. It certainly cannot be said they attract negative things into their lives when those things are common occurrences around them.

3.Hazards are a real issue.

There are, according to some theories, children “choosing to incarnate” into bodies which die before birth, during birth for lack of medical attention, or shortly after, when bombs happen to strike their houses. The only spiritual explanation would be the one religion is trying to forge – “God’s will, God knows what he’s doing”.

Whilst the real explanation is that some fuckers gave the orders for the bombs to be dropped. Are those people a part of God’s plan? I don’t think so. They make their own decisions. They could always decide differently.  If “the supreme creator” gives everyone free will, those bastards upon whom hundreds or thousands of lives depend also have free will. It’s human, not divine action. It happens in real time, not as a part of a “divine plan” “every soul agreed to beforehand”.

The same goes for natural catastrophes – was there a plan “up there” for thousands to incarnate in a certain area just so they could all be struck by the same tsunami? Or was it a random event created by tectonic plates, because this is the kind of planet we happen to be living on?

If this happens at all, it must only happen to some (I can’t dismiss a possibility I can’t invalidate). There are case studies overwhelmingly in favour of reincarnation. But there is nothing to indicate, to my knowledge anyway, that it is voluntary down to details.

4. It implies blaming the victim (of hazard, other people’s actions etc), just as religion does.

Fundamentalist Christians, some of them anyway, are of the conviction that if someone has enough faith, they will be healed of just about anything, and will thrive financially. That is how the “prosperity gospel” operates, church upon church collecting pensioners’ last savings, promising a better future through faith.

In a similar fashion, there are alternative healing methods out there, based on “making peace with life and everyone around you”. There are testimonials from those who claim to have been healed from deadly diseases simply by forgiving everyone who had ever wronged them.

I’m not disputing the role of the psyche in healing the physical body; a positive attitude certainly seems to help.

However, let’s not slide into (and some Christians do) insulting theories about how people who weren’t healed “just didn’t have enough faith”, or alternatively, “were not at peace with life and those around them”. Not everything, and surely not every disease, can be solved in such manners.

In conclusion, this doesn’t seem to work universally, regardless of a person’s conditions. It works for some people sometimes and that’s about it.

 

Identitarian Religion – A Small Conundrum

Increasingly, there is talk of people abandoning mainstream religions, particularly in Europe, to return to ancestral traditions, namely Paganism. And whilst that sounds interesting (a return to communion with nature and spirituality without the constraint of dogmas), something does puzzle me.

It concerns the enmeshment between this revival and present day ethno-nationalism.

Namely, it is not uncommon for Pagans to believe in reincarnation. Which entails accepting the possibility of having been born multiple times in multiple locations, overtime. In fact, many people who describe their past life memories recall having lived in a different country than the one they were born in in their current lifetimes.

Obviously, that is at odds with claiming to have roots in a single ethnicity, culture and tradition. Not to mention claiming racial purity (which, when tested, often doesn’t prove biologically accurate anyway, not in one lifetime, let alone many).

It seems to me those who believe in reincarnation and spirituality based on natural archetypes (not a limited dogma) should logically be more inclined to consider themselves “citizens of the world” than those of other religions.

Just a thought.

Marriage – Both Feminists and MRAs Get It Wrong

In the war for righteous affirmation of the sexes, marriage so often comes up as a bone of contention, both parties trying to agree on who and why is more oppressed by this arrangement.

Feminists usually argue the following:

  • Women are oppressed by marriage and motherhood as a cultural prerequisite for becoming respectable;
  • Unmarried women are oppressed by the stigma sex out of wedlock puts upon them;
  • Some married women are expected to remain in the home and are therefore oppressed by not fulfilling their potential;
  • Married women who work are expected to fulfill both the traditional role of homemaker at the same time as working;
  • Women are regarded differently when they commit infidelities;
  • The physical and emotional abuse of married women is very prevalent and generally overlooked.

Meanwhile, MRAs have arguments of their own:

  • Women demand fidelity while growing farther apart from the traditional mandates of a wife (perpetual attractiveness maintained overtime, efficient homemaking, motherhood, behaviour);
  • Women’s demands have increased substantially overtime, culminating in their current attempt to dominate men;
  • Women use their sexual appeal to ensnare men in the disadvantageous legal arrangement called marriage;
  • Marriage limits men by stigmatising their natural poly-amorous nature;
  • Women are culturally brought up to expect too much out of men;
  • Women are ravenous when it comes to divorce and are favoured in terms of child custody.
  • Women often make false claims of abuse in court.

Arguably, one cannot reach an informed conclusion without considering all the available data, from the origins of marriage to present day. When diving into history, it appears that marriage was, primordially, a form of ownership (the physically dominant sex, namely the male one, owning the physically weaker one, namely female). Later on, through religion, this was consecrated as a divine bond, for the same purposes of control through the control of sexuality (which has been one of the main focuses of Abrahamic religions). It is fair to say that in past times, marriage has been a form of ownership and enslavement; in certain societies it continues to this day (Islamic theocracies, for instance).

Today, in civilised countries, marriage is voluntary (excluding cults, which make their own constrictive rules, as well as religious minorities, which preserve their foreign traditions).

However, both men and women enter it with preconceived ideas regarding the ideal spouse and the perfect life they envisage. Both men and women, therefore, enter this arrangement with a set of illusions, which do not match the reality of their ancestors, nor the one of their peers and therefore, their own.

Women’s typical marital illusions are as follows:

  • A man will not fall out of love when initially in love, unless they do something major to cause it;
  • A man will not lose interest (sexually or altogether) when her body modifies, through pregnancy, age or otherwise;
  • A man will reject thoughts of infidelity as well as resulting actions, out of love;
  • A man who has pledged his role as the head of a family will always comply with it out of duty, where his children are concerned;
  • A man who has not been violent has no potential to become so;
  • Kindness, attentiveness and fidelity on her part ensure that a marriage will not fall down the drain, at least not without attempts of it being rescued.

Men’s illusions, as far as my modest observations go, tend to be these:

  • A woman will do her best to remain as attractive and sexually interesting as initially for the whole duration of their marriage (for life), expecting competition and being fully aware of it at all times;
  • A woman biologically yearns to please men and will do her best in that sense;
  • A woman is less likely to cheat and more likely to forgive if she is being cheated on;
  • A woman is primarily emotional, not practical, and that aspect can be used, in terms of making her happy regardless of reality (his thoughts, intentions and actions);
  • A woman should be protected from the truth and in doing so a man is succeeding in creating a harmonious environment.

Marriage is changing because the roles of the sexes are changing, as well as the general perception on fidelity. These alterations are proving dramatic compared to a few decades ago; some for the better, and others, perhaps, for the worst.

With the constraints of religion no longer applying, morally or socially, this union is therefore being put through the fine test of reality. Free will at its best. It is free will to remain devoted to someone even if they treat you badly, and free will to cheat or become disengaged.

In a way, both men and women cling to a glorified mirage of what the opposite sex thinks and behaves like, partly based on tradition, partly on fictitious narratives, and partly on religious ideas, where that applies.

Culture fails young women

When a girl swaps her taste for fairy tales for syrupy novels, poetry or soap operas, the narrative remains the same. That she will find “the one” who she can “dedicate herself to”, which will result in reciprocity in turn.

Whereas, in reality, men are simply biologically programmed to not remain monogamous.

That doesn’t involve a fault or vice on their part; it is simply their nature, restrained, if barely, so far, by religions (some of them, anyway) and social norms, which are now almost gone.

Monogamy is a conscious choice and an effort for men (and I say this after observing generations I’ve lived among). And infidelity is not some far distant threat but a high probability, always lurking in the shadows. Try as you might, you will never change someone’s nature and neither can society, through laws and ideologies, gods and threats of hell.

The men whose instincts are overcome by devotion, for one reason or another, are few and far between. And typically, they are not the ones women tend to go for (the alpha males), but rather the introverts, the artists, the ones who reach beyond the material realm.

Women are not equipped to deal with this sort of thing; to accept it and move on. They tend to hold on to an illusion, a complete reciprocity that never was, or existed fleetingly, in many cases. Sadly, all the drama around men cheating is needless heartache on the woman’s part.

The answer to this is not the SJW hysteria that all men are potential rapists and sketchy sexed-up animals, which is a sad cheapening of human nature, but the simple realisation and acceptance that this side of them is much stronger and regardless of a man’s intellect or personality, it is likely to someday kick in.

Culture fails young men as well

By not telling them their wives will not necessarily be like their mothers or grandmothers, in the way they organise and conduct themselves. Times have changed and women have changed; that much is true. When men decry that, they decry the traditional feminine ideal, which is under ripples of transformation. And although I do not agree with feminists, in their radical aspiration to elevate women above men, I do agree that the tendencies young women embrace nowadays are not their fault, as they are culturally-induced. These trends may change their attire or superficial behaviour but do not change their biological instincts. Men are taught to separate “good, obedient women” from “whores”, neither one being a realistic label for someone’s actual nature.

The objectifying, self-gratifying side of life advertised to boys and men is also hardly realistic and plays on their instincts (or preys on them, better yet). And therefore, they expect their wives to be the fulfillment of their intimate fantasies, to the letter, and remain as such throughout the years, which, when pregnancy appears, tends to swiftly modify. This is turned back not on questioning the unrealistic expectations they have of one individual, but on the individual in question, should she fail to meet them.

And nowadays, it fails them by telling them their nature is somehow defective and they should embrace a feminine perspective, which is contrary to their biological inclinations. Which is not the answer to anything and only results in a poisonous backlash of anger, sometimes manifesting as variations of the Alt Right.

The truth is no side, male or female, can dominate and change or subdue the other if equality really is sought. And the truth hurts. You cannot mould someone into an ideal partner. You either take them as they are, with the good, bad and ugly, or move on. No social or political movement will ever manage to change human nature to the advantage of one sex.

Those who have genuine intentions, aware of the effort they will be engaging in, and manage to find each other will thrive in it; those who do not, will fail at it. It’s as simple as that. Mutual love and respect can be achieved, enabling people to work through their differences with no authority hanging over their heads but these two concepts. Marriage isn’t even necessary for that to take place; it simply grants legal advantages.

Why Isolationism Is Completely Detrimental

Where does one draw the line between healthy nationalism (belonging, memories of one’s upbringing, culture, traditions, spirituality) and its potential toxic effects? The latter can range from a sense of superiority compared to other countries to a sense of entitlement (the US for instance) or even blatant racism, xenophobia and other types of bigotry.

Most people, I infer (and see in everyday life) are somewhere in the middle, enjoying the positive, harmless aspects associated with nationalism and at least frowning upon a radical view.

There is, however, a growing trend towards isolationism in the West, especially as an opposition to adverse cultural aspects found in certain minority communities. My sole intent is to extrapolate on this as a general idea, which I dare think applies well enough.

Travelling and meeting people from all corners of the Earth is the most efficient transformation a human being can experience, from being self-centred and presumably all-knowing, to being humble and accepting of others.

There is no reason why one should not be able to enjoy their cultural specifics without turning into an apologist for cultural superiority and moral hegemony (which is religiously-inspired in many countries where faith is the main drive of what is accepted morality).

Moreover, though many think that because the availability of information is such a plus nowadays (and it is), they can gain an objective perspective of life in other countries with a single click. The fact is that most reporting is biased, focused on what the purpose of said reporting is. There are many different realities in each country and each one either under-represented or over-represented, according to the bias and ultimate objective of the media outlet doing the reporting.

We are all limited in our knowledge and experience, and seeking certain sources of information may very well solidify certain biases.

Whereas one can never get the full perspective on the world, they can very well try, and try to do so in an objective manner.

Ironically, although countries and by default their citizens were separated in the past by more restrictions on travelling (or the physical difficulty of it, which is no longer an issue) isolationism and “othering” seem to be more prevalent nowadays, when the media reaches nearly every home and every person in the West (and I’m including the alternative media here).

The end goal seems to be a major clash, violent perhaps. Unless it’s avoided by people’s realism and why not, humanity.

 

Nosferatu Eats The Daily Mail

In case the title reads a bit odd, the comparison between the mythical un-dead and avid consumers of this publication seems increasingly warranted. In this section of the food chain, Nosferatu gorges on Daily Mail articles, in his unsatisfied craving to in fact consume other humans – and it, in turn, gorges on the small remnants of his brain, without which it could not survive. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

The far-right press, for some time, has had to at least nudge its audience in order to draw out racist, xenophobic or generally spiteful attitudes in relation to an event. That is no longer the case, apparently.

Its faithful disciples exhale contempt to the point of no longer seeing beyond their fixations, regardless of what the discussion centres on.

Gentrification has been intensely discussed in recent weeks, after the tragic fire which engulfed Grenfell Tower in London, as a result of the disparity between the very rich and poorer residents of the area. After an announcement was made that survivors would be housed in flats they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to afford, some people’s reactions were indeed very surprising and reminiscent of past centuries, rather than our current year.

It’s not often that the worst manifestations of snobbery are freely displayed in an open space, giving the values the west pretends to espouse. In this case, it occurred in the most unexpected of circumstances, namely the imperious need to rehouse victims of a fire as soon as possible.

“My service charge bill – and it’s a low one this year – is £15,500. I would feel really resentful if someone got the same thing for free. I feel sorry for those people but my husband and I work very hard to be able to afford this. And for someone to get it for free, I would move.”

One has to wonder what is, concretely, being done to this woman. How would her fine life be affected exactly? How would it benefit her if she left her home? The only conclusion is that A, the insult is so extraordinary her mind cannot cope with it, or/and B, she can only mingle with her own social stratum, even if no one would actually force her to mingle but merely to breathe the same air, from a comfortable distance.

And if one does give her the benefit of the doubt for feeling some injustice because of her hard work, by reading subsequent comments one sees without a doubt that some people do, in this day and age, simply refuse to mingle with those who are not as rich as them. These are people who benefited from higher education, who presumably traveled around and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. And yet, all these possibilities were not enough for them to fully develop as sentient human beings. Sifting through the comments was fairly disturbing yet sobering at the same time.

All these comments scream “those people are lower than us; we know them to a tee; they are a different breed and do not deserve to breathe the same oxygen as we do”.

  1. I’m sure the residents of these super-posh developments are just itching to take in a large, loud black mama JUST like Diane Abbott! Wait ’til they all start playing their music loudly and their kids make loads of noise! Watch the fallout!

2. I fear the entitlement attitude will only get worse due to constantly having those in the media and socialist left that everyone is equal. Housing such people in these luxury apartments will end in tears as they become more and more disconnected  from a community than bears no resemblance to their background  or social position, alienating both the private and social housing occupants.

Translation: they will alienate the rich just by existing in their proximity, as they are a different species. Apparently, there is no chance under the sun that people can coexist in the same building unobtrusively or get along very well in this situation.

3. It has nothing to do with not having as much money, that is so simplistic. It is to do with these people not sharing in the same culture background. Many can hardly speak English, many are Asylum seekers, refugees and worse still illegal immigrants, who come from third world countries who will be living next door to people who are paying for the privilege of living in such an area. Surely everyone when buying a home eventually choose a home by doing research on an area, types of neighbors, crime rates etc…And it appears it’s wrong that one should want to be able to choose when they’re spending money out of their own pocket.

Needless to say, these are pure assumptions. The only thing this person knows for sure is they were paying a lower rent and were not as well-off as the other residents of the area. Which by definition must mean all of the above, in their view.

4.To put it simply this Country is overloaded with immigrants to the point where the identity of white British people has and continues to be wiped out. Therefore its time all immigration was halted for the time being to allow the rightful owners, the white British people to recover their numbers.

Using an event of this type, corroborated with racial stereotyping, in order to rant about immigration.

5. To people who are criticising this woman including this radio person.  What would you say if all of these moved in next door to you for free?  Nothing at all, and you would welcome them?  Yeah right!
6.They are deserving to be rehoused permanently in suitably sized accommodation, but not necessarily in the same Borough ….. in any Borough where there is accommodation and where social housing rents are similar to Grenfell.  Otherwise, who’s going to take up the slack with the substantial increase in rent for Kensington Row?  The public purse of course and not just for a few months, but permanently.
Which is not even the case, but never mind. This obsession with preventing a group of people from – Heaven forbid – living in accommodation which is “too good for them” is truly disturbing, as if it were done on a national scale.

7. Where is the heart – to have true heart you need to be able to understand that not all people are the same or equal, this does not mean they are not entitled or should not receive compassion, empathy and a caring approach to help re-build their lives again, but by suggesting we are all the same, when “realistically and logically” we are not, demonstrates we have a long way to go before we resolve the real problems and issues in our country.

8. Because £15.5k per annum is the going rate for service charges.  A block I know in SW11 charges £18,500 p.a. – that’s for 24 hr concierge, private refuse collection, someone at Reception all day to take parcels in for the residents and ensure no stranger just walks into the building, gardener, maintenance,  and many other services. Are you suggesting that the Grenfell people should also get this service?  You cannot be serious …… for what reason?  It is divisive to promote a better standard of living for migrants who have not yet contributed to the Exchequer above your own population.

9. And after years of working for very wealthy people I learned this:  Wealthy people want to be amongst other wealthy people only. They do not want to be part of a mixed socio-economic try-out ,especially at such close quarters which I believe would be next door to their prestigious apartment block.  Why do you think such prestigious blocks are built in expensive areas such as W14 in the first place?  Shelagh Fogarty is being more than usually dim.  Let’s not mix up the personal tragedies suffered by people from Grenfell with their eligibility to live in Kensington Row.

“Eligibility to live…”  Perhaps this person would admit they were not “eligible” to live in a death trap, but for Heaven’s sake, not “eligible” to move ranks that much! These people seem so sure of themselves, when nothing is guaranteed in life, not even the continuation of life itself, not even for one day. They must not spend an awful lot of time contemplating how short life is and what really matters at the end of the day.

10.This has nothing to do with people shouting racist or snobbery, but can we truly alter the demographics of a whole country, small community culture beyond all recognition where people who have worked to be able to choose where they want to live, the type of community they want to live in, the type of people they feel they relate, share the same values, outlook and commonality with. I find many people overlook the fact that many communities are being changed so much, than when the media film or interview people the community could easily be a third world shanty town. This is fact, NOT a ridicule of the people, we all revert to who and where we come from, and you cannot change an Asylum seeker’s or illegal immigrants background, the way they live by installing them in a luxury flat in Kensington.

The issue to this individual doesn’t seem to be the one at hand, which is a crisis, but somehow, as a goal in and of itself, to transform those people, making them suitable for a posh area. You just can’t make some of this stuff up.

11. Totally agree with the lady on the phone. I don’t even understand why the poor are living in the most expensive districts of the country. The past generations must have sold the right to live there for £££’s. Just being born in an area doesn’t automatically entitle you with the right to live there.

Paraphrasing someone who replied, partly to serve the rich, who might be forced to wipe their own behinds in every way, were it not for the poor who provide them with needed services. Of course, one might argue the poor can always commute. They don’t have to live, what an outrageous notion, right under those snooty noses. They spoil the view.

Although to think of it, the acrid comments were still more polite than those of these thoughtful readers, renowned for their intellectual capacity, since they read The Sun.

Another suggestion might be to build a new block of flats where the ruins once stood and then decant them all back although I wouldn’t like to see the state of some of the luxury flats then.

What’s wrong with trailer parks, certainly an upgrade to a bombed out piece of rubble in the desert.

These people have basically won the lottery, they’ll never have to work again and all the rules no longer seem to apply to them.

Out of pity for the laptop I might vomit on I will stop pasting quotes, undecided which ones were more despicable – the pure venom written by intellectually challenged individuals or the cynicism and snobbery of the well-to-do.

You might wonder what is wrong with these people. Is there something in their water?

 

YouTube Demonetisation: Right Wing Snowflake Hypocrisy

In light of the new hysteria regarding the earnings of “professional YouTubers” with a right-leaning discourse, some things just need to be said, and pardon the occasional lack of politeness, as this is largely coming from the – still unflinching – Trump bandwagon.

Though I should probably start with the facts versus feelings trope, used by them when convenient but cast aside when it comes to the legal framework they agreed to when starting their careers, I will do so with a parallel which really gets on my nerves.

This is presented as an injustice striking content creators deemed undesirable by the YouTube platform, based only on their political opinions. The retraction of an opportunity they once took when the selection criteria for monetisation were more loose, thus allowing them to express their views freely – and a lucrative one, for a number of years.

I hate to sound pretentious when mentioning karma, but I do wonder how loud their protesting voices were when innocent workers and students were threatened with swift exclusion from the US after Trump’s attempted immigration ban. Didn’t their livelihoods, threatened at the unexpected, mere stroke of a pen, matter at all?

If governments are allowed to turn people’s lives upside-down by excluding them unfairly, overnight, is it immoral for a private company in a capitalist country to do the same?

Obviously, I’m not fully comparing the endangering of a hobby-turned-job, of people who are fully able to get a real one, to the complete upturning of immigrants’ lives. I’m only pointing out the queasiness of their lamentation for what qualifies as a uniquely first world problem, and a shallow one at that. Especially when that lamentation comes after their support, vocal or tacit, of said draconian policies.

Or how about the hard working, tax paying illegal immigrants, suddenly hunted down in the hundreds and thousands, to the point of being afraid to leave their homes, after being accepted by previous administrations with check-ins and the likes?

The Trump administration “restructured”. So did YouTube. So they want support, compassion, righteous indignation. Where was theirs, for the masses of people whose livelihoods were swiftly taken from them, or the ones living in constant fear? The message of most Trump supporting YouTube careerists was not even suck it up or life is tough; it was absent, tacitly complicit, if not giddy, considering the constant, though abstract, lauding of ‘tightening the borders’, as a concept, with no regard towards individuals . While the mainstream media, as corrupt as it is, did cover the real struggles of real individuals (human beings, not statistics) during these changes, they were silent.

The human suffering brought on by these policies is impossible to ignore. As repelled as one can be by the term ‘privilege’ when exaggeratedly used by progressives, this approach, honestly, reeks of it.

Content creators posting certain views on YouTube, upon creating an account, were aware YouTube was owned by Google, a company with declared liberal values. Hence they knowingly have been taking advantage of permissive rules in what they knew was an ideologically adverse environment. They took the opportunity.

So did, far more daringly, those who moved to a country where they knew they were not fully wanted. The conundrum and scale of the loss cannot be compared by any standards.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

How does it feel to be suddenly unwanted, cast aside, after making an honest existence on the same terms for years?

Of course, YouTubers still have options; plenty of them. The people shoved from a country they’d made their home do not.

 

 

 

Right-wing Pro-Brexit Hypocrisy: Ignoring Scotland’s Will For Independence

Long title, concise and annoying reality.

If you frequent platforms claimed to be based on free speech, nationalism and the free determination of a nation’s fate, you might’ve come across articles, videos and memes proclaiming “the UK has taken its independence back from the European Union”.

Moreover, if you are not based in the UK, you might not be aware that only England and Wales overwhelmingly voted for Brexit, whilst Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against it (in Scotland, this being the dominant vote).

Where is Scotland’s right to self-determination in this equation, where the promoters of Brexit are concerned?

The irony would be far less poignant if this weren’t about self-determination in the first place. Apparently, some are so happy to start lowering the coffin of the European Union they keep circulating material which portrays the whole of the UK going in the same direction, although they know this not to be the state of affairs.

Some understand better than others that the current fascination with the far-right and dismantling the EU is, at a popular level, not only rooted in opposition to Brussels dominating countries financially, but in the desire to close the borders and limit freedom of movement, as well as purge countries of foreigners.

Although doubtlessly, there are many who want this change for purely administrative reasons, kick all these foreigners out is a venial drive for a lot of people, especially in England. Fervid Trump supporters, in Europe or the US (or elsewhere) seem to share this obsession with isolationism, some claiming “Scotland is the new Sweden”, in terms of the leftist political direction it seems to be taking.

They fully ignore, however, the fact that in recent decades, many people have built their lives around the freedom of movement they took for granted, as if it would always be there. Things have gone way too far to be radically changed now, without turning the lives of individuals completely upside-down. Matters are no longer as simple as “just close the borders again”.

Nationalism in Scotland is different that its counterpart in other European countries, in terms of not being rooted in right-wing isolationism.

It is a separate and unique phenomenon.

It is, nonetheless, nationalism – in its true meaning, which is not by default associated with conservative politics.

 

 

The Role Model Complex – “I Was Once Like You”

A good way of differentiating between assholes and decent people is their use of their life experience – whilst decent folks, after going through a string of successes but also failures, tend to become more tempered and humble, assholes who manage to improve their condition develop an arrogance which escalates into bigotry.

Despising those who live in poverty after having risen out of it yourself is generally frowned upon, and for good reason. The same principle applies to any disadvantage one can think of, from lacking resources to being duped by a political ideology out of naivety.

In other words, the I used to be you and now I’m much better mentality.

In my view, a decent person is likely to regard anyone in their previous situation with more understanding and compassion, as they have an insight into where the person is at that point in time, in that particular aspect of their life. An asshole, on the other hand, will gloat, claiming the other is weak and should just follow their example in order to get out of their pathetic state (which might only be that bad in the eye of the beholder).

Recently, I stumbled upon a blog post which got me thinking about the times we live in.

Having been fat himself in the past, a blogger took the time to observe an unknown woman’s food preferences in public, to then shame her on the internet. Appalled by the overweight stranger he spotted in a restaurant, he took note of what she and her friends were eating, later writing he regretted his camera hadn’t been up to the job, to capture the food on the table, apparently enough for an entire battalion. By sheer coincidence, the next day he spotted her again on the subway, showing photos of her night out to a friend (including of what she’d stuffed her face with, which was noted by our amateur detective as incriminating evidence).

He then followed her around; to his outrage, the bitch decided to get a sandwich (which was to be used as further proof of her unbelievable depravity). He then proceeded to photograph her in the street, as she was casually walking with her mates, unaware of being stalked or the public embarrassment this gentleman was preparing. It’s beside the point to mention she was only a bit bigger than average, which wouldn’t have warranted the words he wrote there.

The psychological aspect is truly disturbing. Focusing his attention on a complete stranger who was enjoying a night out, scrutinising her, following and photographing her with the precise intention of online shaming. He even mentions “I managed to get a picture when…” which means he was bent on doing this; it wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment idea. Because, in his own words, he’s obsessed with overweight people due to his past, which apparently gives him the right to use innocent, unsuspecting folks in such ways in order to feel better about his achievement.

For some, I guess the hatred of their former selves is enough for them to project it onto everyone else, joining the ranks of bullies, and proudly so. Some people do it on a lower scale; I’ve seen formerly fat people tease others with the pretext of being well-meaning. I’ve even seen them lash out at others on this subject. But this is just too much; the entitlement is baffling.

It’s comparable to the SJW mentality of wanting every individual to perfectly fit into the mould they have designed, or else (the “else” being scorn and vitriol by the bucket). Although this guy is definitely anti-SJW, the drive is the same – an unhealthy obsession with negative feelings, past or present, whether they were caused by others or not, which generates universal mandates for them to formulate and spread with evangelical devotion.

To be honest, I don’t think these people are in a good place with their self-esteem, or they wouldn’t feel the need to do this.

This drive seems so deeply rooted it overshadows any concerns of inappropriateness, of behaviour that borders on illegal (in this case, chasing strangers to take their picture) or the lack of positive consequences their actions are likely to have.