An end to the Terror - part 3 - interlude

There's just one issue though. And ... it's the type of thing one is to expect if I was down the really wrong rabbit hole here. Like so, nothing tangible seems to come of it, though ... I haven't really been rigorous in my research on it. Yet, I think I shouldn't have to be.

I mean, there is a kind of power or authority I thought this Key of Peter would have - yet instead it so far only boiled down to "Spirit Wars". ...

But well. As for this interlude, that's not what I wanted to write about.

Like so, I'm under the impression that I need to "remind" people of what a Government is - and maybe peel off some of the historic baggage that the concept has accumulated.

So, in essence we thereby have two models. Democracy and Authoritarianism. And most modern Governments are a mix of the two, if not just a form of the latter. That is also why we don't have Socialism/Communism yet, and ... in that regard, an experiment:: Republicans are Right, when they say: "It's either Trump or Socialism" - as per the tendencies that are being implied - it's one or the other. XD
So, there's a lot of talk about societal concepts - as per an unwritten contract that exists between us - as also a kind of struggle ... like ... some kind of culture war ... concerning who gets to "write" it.

At any rate however, there's a framework of truth I think is insurmountable. Basically. So, if we as a community, or society, collective - however you wanna call whatever about it - see a thing we don't like ... and we come to an agreement that we don't like it ... we would then look for a way to maintain that agreement. And that entails the good and the bad of history.
A primal example can be found in the Bible. Following the story of the Exodus, we find the people of Israel settling in Canaan - sporting a political system that could barely be described political or a system. So, their government was so bare bones - one might have a hard time recognizing the people of Israel by one.
And by all simplicity - the aforementioned example couldn't have been realized within it. As ... there have not been any ... organs to do so. However - their political system yet changed as they demanded for a human King as the other people around them had. Thus ... becoming a Monarchy. And God ... begrudgingly ... went with it. And I suppose back then as today ... something something David.

So, the only reason they became a Monarchy was them seeing the others have one. Which is to say ... they could have had anything - and I suppose - some of those ways wouldn't have violated the understanding of God being their King. And also being less prone to corruption and greed and megalomania and stuff.

As we have it today ... democracy has become a means to basically censor the authoritarian aspects of what we might consider being "the common sense government (of today)". So are people elected to then hold authority - and the election is to enable us to chose the people doing so, rather than basically being at "God's Mercy" when it comes to that.
And depending on fortunes and ... stuff ... that can turn out to be close to democratic or close to dictatorial.
Though I suppose at the end of the day ... we need to first realize 'true' democracy before we can ... consider the authoritarian noise a thing of the past.

And I sure understand that people have reasons to fear it. But that sentiment is the perfect breeding ground that enables influencial minorities to take over control. While so the US System can be good in theory - a lot of it hinges, as in most if not all of these democratic authoritarianisms, on the representatives good will. I mean, what is a 'human right', if the governing body yet holds indiscriminate authority to do as it pleases? Well, it exists on nothing but a whim!

So, obviously the point of a true democracy can only truly be seen within the good will of considerate co-existence - we might say. Which is to say that we need to calm down and start working things out. It shouldn't he "that hard". Buut ... here's the thing then: When people argue against "Socialism" in the sense of Big versus Small Government - that mind, to my perspective, is diametrically opposed to developing a working understanding of the substance at hand.

For, big or small is irrelevant. It needs to be what it needs to be! Could we say, but then they would start talking about taxes. And with that on the table, I'd argue that the conversation essentially devolves into a game of chicken - as they have embedded themselves in a position that is ready to go as far back as perfect autonomy from external influences to maintain their idea of small government. So would some go there right from the get go by advocating for anarcho-syndicalism or what it's called/to call it. We then should be prepared to either grant them that - or be straight about not doing so. And in a sense - that's the aftermath of the civil war. So - the grievance over the northern states essentially conquering the southern ones. So, imposing a rule by force, rather than by democracy. I'd argue most people consider it to have been good - just as the allies defeating Nazi Germany is generally considered to have been for the greater good. And ... something I want to get off my chest: The Fall of Dresden ... may just be one of the most epic daybreak moments of history. Maybe epic is the wrong word - as there's a lot of hurt and suffering that made this victory so meaningful in my eyes. But ... I just wanted to commemorate that somehow. "The Quint-essential allied victory" we might say.

On with the text: We'd be in cope-mode however, trying to find argumentative reasoning to reveal the flaws in their thinking. So are roads and streets - or so the entirety of logistics as we have it today - a common good. And sure - usually paid for and maintained by tax money. A bill I think most people are willing to pay ... which in their world view makes it ours - and by their logic we'd have the right to forbid them the usage of them - and anything that comes of it.
With such argumentation however - they would then try to flip it around. Imposing, that by using their own logic against them - we submited to the rationality of their logic and are hence to be held accountable by the same.
That game we can also play, however not on a basis other than that we're merely trying to protect our own interests - and that we don't owe an answer as to what or why. Simply because they by definition don't have a part in our governance - as they for all to hear wanted to have it their way - then need to come up with their own government to build their own roads ... at which point ... we might ask Elon to sing us a song. So, you know, it might ... ROFSLMAO ... sink in!


So, naturally, we can maintain that ... this whole anarcho-syndicalism is not going to happen. Not if we - as a whole, or so - with sufficient numbers, can help it. For naturally they don't truly want to effectively join the amish. I mean, yea. The amish we could sympathize with enough I guess to let them onto our roads.

But so it then goes: Who's roads are it? Territories might form, Warlords might emerge - as that is what that small government patriotic dream would boil down to. Mad Maxian Anarchy. Where - what we have today ... is ... truly Epic. Just ... take a chocolate par. Everything from the packaging to the ingredients of the bar ... is so far above and beyond what our ancestors could have imagined - it defies description as we ourselves might have a hard time to grasp it in its entirety.
I'd be surprised if not close to every business out there uses at least one CPU as part of their operations - while these things are in fact so ubiquitous - one wouldn't be surprised to find a toaster equipped with one. Though ... that is in my opinion where things are going a bit too far. As also it would most likely only serve as a predetermined breaking point. And a mark-up on the price-tag for whatever features you really don't need in a toaster. I mean, we may imagine: "Never overtoast a toast again!" - just to have it break like after a month or two; And you'd wish you could overtoast again.

So, it's not even an exageration to say that things are so Epic ... it's insane!
Then only imagine what sanity could add to it.

So, at best - we'd get Steampunk out of that Mad Max trajectory. I mean, I like to think - and you can agree or not - that Nazi Germany was riding the high horse of what people thought to be 'high tech'. And that high tech ... by modern standards ... is for the most part just ... as ancient as neanderthals and mammoths. And yet an entire nation had to come together - to sport that. And so, yea ... governments are inevitable.

That is, to also come back to the Bible example from earlier, that in a "state"less society - people would with relative certainly have a reason to come together sooner rather than later to discuss matters of mutual interest.
And so ... here we are ... today ... in the age of "not quite Quantum Computing and not quite A.I. assisted everything". And I fail to see how cooperation wasn't what got us here - thinking of all the good stuff.

To say ... "we're so close!". But instead we're dealing with ... people that read a wrong article once and think themselves experts on life and the universe. That's how it feels at least. Like ... so they're upset over using inclusive language while dreaming up horror stories of how they're discriminated by the Rainbow Mob. And yea - sure ... these people are traumatized. They're afraid of Rainbows! And what did the Rainbow ever do to them? I mean, sorry if the "liberal mind virus" allowed us to grow a spine and stand up for ourselves and demand a semblance of what the cis-hets had for what must have been forever. Like, if their stuff is so righteous - why would it hurt them if others had the same?

But yea. Sure ... that's where we are. "Concerning the fabric of society". Here's an idea: If nowadays sucks so much - it, for once, is not due to what will be maybe one day ... but what has been taken us to the point where we are now. So, one has to wonder: What came first? The things that suck - or you beholding the motion to pay more respects to minorities? As I see it - the two are seen as linked, because one experiences the notion of inclusivity as a symptom of the suckage that has been. And naturally the conversation eventually revolves around the issue of where the money goes - while a certain group of people ontop of that doesn't want to have a where it comes from. Which so is another ... "conservative deadloop" we might say. To say, how can they blame the suckage on the money not going where it should be going, if they think there shouldn't be money in the first place? That's ... an oxymoron. Now, they'd think they'd have more money for themselves - but forget that what they buy with that money will come with an increased pricetag due to all the things that the companies now have to take care of because there isn't a central organ anymore. And in the meantime there also aren't any regulations. Funny thing: Germany is one of the strongest Economies in the world - and we have regulations up our ass! For such a tiny country - if it were so devastating to have standards be maintained - we'd have to be the poorest country in the world.

And yea. I guess to the german eye, "lacking in regulations" is like one of the hallmarks for what we'd call a "backwater country". "uses the imperial system" is like a debuff ontop of that.

And seriously - I'm ... I mean, this is somehow part of my sense of humor. But then again ... it's hard to think of the Americas as not a severely brainwashed nation. I mean, the thing is that the USA did go through what we might call a socialist Renaissance under Roosevelt - and then one or more dipshits came in afterwards and cashed in on what had come from that - and since then everyone seems to just go with "capitalism" being what made America great. No. It's what made it ugly. I mean ... there's more ... but ... that also depends on ... what we might call inner beauty. To say, how history is being owned matters. I'm German ... and I know that some don't like that we're feeling guilty for things our ancestors did. But to me, the understanding of what had happened is like a burden that must be worn - carried - as we can also see what happens to nations that don't do that! To say that it should be more of a global understanding - although ... the thing is more about learning that cooperation needs to be greater than ego.
So yea - the situation with people being attracted to the riches of the west - as we embrace them with open arms just to have tabloids slap us in our faces with stories of how ungrateful they are - is a real point of friction, for obvious reasons. If a stranger comes to your house to have a party there - against your will - you'd be right to (want to) throw them out. But ... if there are a lot of homeless people, there's also something unreal about the neat happy world you want(think) to live in, eventually. So, sure it's unfair if 'we' are the only ones pulling our weight - whoever now ... may count themselves in. And it sure is disheartening to see how people we embraced would still vote for fascists. But still I'm proud to be German. That because there are plenty of people here - who are just as willing and adamant on bearing their own cross ... as it were ... that overall we can live in such a beautiful place.

And so, it are stressful times. Stressful because of the amount of people that suck up the hateful rhetoric that divides us. And what sucks the most are people who do so while pretending they're the chill ones.

And - in reality - I'd say it isn't really the time to be perfectly chill. I mean it's fairly due to be at least a little bit upset about "whatever the fuck" "their problem" is. I mean, it's fair to say, that at a certain point the whole insistence on adequate gendering would go to far - but if you're not even trying and you don't face any of the BS that people claim they do ... we're really not there yet! And what happens in the public is a different story! As, most of the time, people wanna point out when something went too far - while they then act as though we demanded their liver and a leg. And meanwhile every at least superficially outrageous story gets hijacked to fuel the hate engine - and none of it gets discussed properly, as ... I suppose most people also don't really care all that much as they fail to see why it should be such a big deal. But that pendulum also swings both ways.

Or whatever.
So, let's say this whole "calming down" part isn't as easy as it may seem. And people are concerned - seeing a need for action - though nobody can really articulate what that should look like. Except ... for me and "mine" ... I guess. Which probably doesn't include each and every answer to whatever issue one might have with this or that - but that is just an inevitable consequence of coexisting with others who think they have all the answers ... while most of them suck ass.

But so, here's an idea: We've learned of the importance of cooperation and how that is tied to the inevitability of governance. And we (can) understand, that if we can cooperate better, we're likely to take another quantum leap in terms of most if not all things related to cooperation. So, if you can glimpse that tomorrow - ask yourself, how we would treat gender and sexual identity - in that next better tomorrow.

Here's another one: I think, and whether you see it the same might be something to ponder upon, that had Jesus spoken to his fellowship of Homosexuality and Transsexuality - even the homosexual and transsexual individuals around would have had the Queerphobic cringe reaction. Heterosexuality is how biology "expresses itself" or ... "makes sense". But the spirit is above biology. And so is the spirits curiosity above a strict gender binary. But as I can't help but cringe over heterosexuality - I must assume heterosexuals can't help but cringe over homosexuality. At least the males. That because we at first can only relate to those things via our own experience. And in a time where nurture was vastly determined by biology - even homosexuals might not dare to reason against its logic.
Like so, a lot of what God chose to be - tends to be highlighted as incomprehensive; Either in the light of "God works in mysterious ways" or the light of "Therefore atheism". And I think it helps to think of Good and Evil.

So - there is an atheistic deadloop. I respect those that try not to fall for it - but I think on and off it just comes with the biases. So, part of the atheistic rhetoric is like "how can God let all this Evil happen?" - so, clearly there is Evil. Very real Evil. As in - objectively present in this world. Yet, when talking of this theological concept of Good and Evil - it's not considered to be a valid duality; As Evil here is treated as more of a hypothetical. Something that must have been created ... and therefore wanted. But, to re-iterate, yet everyone agrees that it emerges as an intrinsic property of reality.

So the challenge for us is to overcome it. And that evil that we are to overcome - is the very real evil that exists. Not just some abstract hypothetical that may or may not have been created. So, the narrative eventually goes, that God didn't only allow this Evil to exist, He also created amplifiers for it. Technically 'finite resources' may be counted as one - but with that, we're already squarely in the "realest of conditions" type of settings for it.
But sure. The snake, fallen angels, the Antichrist ... it's certainly an intrinsic concept to the Bible; As in many places it is explicitly stated. But so do these amplifiers only amplify what already exists within us - and through that, we are exposed to the very real threats that emerge from our own freedom. And there is no hypothetical ... that could fix this ... if we fail to address the very real problems.

Part of it is experience, part of it is nurture, but a part of it is also adaptation. The latter is what also usually leads us to the term of "organic growth". And that should generally be regarded as some kind of ideal - unless we're dealing with a cancer of sorts.

And so ... in as far God's plan entails that we organically outgrow evil, it cannot be in His interest that this turns cancerous. And that I think is a safe silver lining to the "mysteriousness" of His ways. As for the bigger - sortof - topic at hand - that also entails my role in all this. If I so were the ultimate of what one might think I ought to be - by the labels I carry/titles I own - I'd basically be here on what we might call a peculiar choice for a holliday. Thereby however this world is subject to rules that exist for a reason. It overall being like ... a project that is near and dear to His heart. So, why would or should I be interested in ... messing things up? He sure didn't give me a reason to. This worrld sure gives me reasons ... to want the one or the other thing that might go against those rules ... but I respect His decisions.

So, what is needed - eventually - is God's "surgical precision" or "know how" - depending on how much needs to be micro and macro managed. And I sure do not know ... the all of it - and respectively do I not have the confidence to basically try to casually do the equivalent of brain surgery here.
Which is I think the best explanation for why my authority may seem ... well ... spotty.

So am I then, on the other hand, yet a part of the divine body. And the kind of magic that makes that one work - isn't the kind of magic that would allow me to throw fireballs. So - I might put it so, as ... it really gets the point accross: Once I "learn how to levitate" - we can talk more about some of the things, but until then it's probably better for me to try and stay grounded.
And ... I would argue that there is a chance that I might ... but right now ... is not the time.

SO, where were we? Inclusivity?
Well, I do always find it scary - how much opportunity otherwise sane and rational people have, to speak against it. Rightfully so at times - I might add. We - I - can't blame them for that. But that's also the dangerous part of Identity Politics. I'm ... a lot of Queer; And yet - by some other definition of Queerness - wouldn't really qualify much as that. I guess I could label my position as "conservative left" - but I also consider myself to be progressive. I also think that we owe it to future generations ... to foster sanity within us, as opposed to demanding that things stay the same - while they clearly don't as they can't! And that is difficult - if whatever side I identify with, is also littered with proverbial scarecrows. And I like to believe that all the "I'm not a Nazi, but ..." types really mean it that way also ... 'but' .... .

At the end of the day - ONE ... has to be right. Even if only so by democratic choice. And even if only so in the abstract. ONE person has to get it right enough ... for this exodus into sanity to find coherence. ONE has to manage to accumulate enough ... hope we might say ... for there to be a foundation for agreements to grow upon. And until then ... I suppose ... we're accusing each other of being Pedophiles. I'll ... make a start.

The conservative movement, as modeled after or in alignment with the US republican party, is one of child molesters and sex offenders. It is literally their credo - only ... somehow ... lacking explicit admission. There, I don't think, is one position they hold that will ever come to fruition if democracy were to decide. Things such as 'forced birthing' for instance - are so backwards - they won't ever find widespread appreciation. And as it is with that - there are a lot of other things they "stand for", that would ultimately have to either be given up - or persisted upon by force. And given how keen they are on demanding female subservience and the legality of child marriage - yea ... no. I mean - I'd be down for all of that - but the logic I provide, the safeguards that I see necessary for that to be sanely possible, is what they again would call demonic. So ... yea, just ... no! No comprende!
And so I will say this: Not pedophilia is the problem - people who are willing and ready to violate other people's boundaries and victimize them for their own benefit ... are. We may all be a little bit guilty of it - but certainly some are yet more guilty than others. There's a line somewhere ... and ... something something spectrum. It's not all that complicated after all.

So yea - they are just rapists. By ideology. That much should be evident. And I don't see how the Gospels tell us that that is what Christ wanted us to be!

But yea - that's me out of juice for the day. Have a nice one - and please don't make me regret this!