Things we can learn from 'social correctness'

What do all of the Nations our Western Civilization apparently officially despises have in common? Well, what do we not like? Lets start with that. Dictatorship! So, there's Stalin, Hitler, North Korea, ... then eventually the WW2 Japan, ... and maybe we should first and foremostly focus on Stalin. "Because Communism". In this line-up ... there isn't much that differenciates "Russia" from Germany, ... Stalin compared to Idi Amin, ... there's a reason why both show up when speaking about "crazy world leaders". They did the same stuff, ... and you can't really - actually - just from looking at them - deduce what political system they're actually a part of. Except: Totalitarian ... dictatorship. And to be fair ... WW2 Japan vs. "CIA" ... there isn't really that much of a gap either!

There are two punch-words that I'd argue ... well ... do "stick around" when we were to discuss these issues: Freedom and (Mass) Murder. Whats perplexing is that ... well, ... sometimes we can justify "captivity", and sometimes we can justify murder. Things that come hand in hand with this when discussing politics is also 'Empirialism', which ultimately is nearly the same as talking about Resources. So, its just a short stretch into 'Colonialism' - and when put onto the Global political "landscape" there's "that Chaos". For once: If we establish that these negative things are things that "others do/have" - there's "that rest" which is excludable from these atrocities - at least hypothetically. On the other side of the coin though we get to the situations that nations 'have to' somehow compete in this jungle - where on the one end we do have 'natives' - as tribes that do (and I'm pointing on them specifically) still live in the jungle with all their archaic ways of life - from where we could practically draw a transition into metropoles. Used as 'metaphor' - there's the poverty of isolation on the one side and the wealth of global trade on the other. The 'proclaimed' opposite to "the western world" is Islamic ... thing ... lets say 'terrorism'. And therein we yet don't really find a real difference to the CIA, Stalin, Hitler and co..


And so, whats going to happen if I were to propose a revolution to change this up? I'd get to establish a Government with tools of control - and the big question is how that is gonna be any different to the USA today, or Germany for that sake. This is where I'd rather focus on Germany. Being worried about people like Trump "because Hitler" is one thing, but there is one thing that I'd say is not likely to happen these days anymore, in our western world: The grant of power. But ... I digress.
The point is: Nowadays we have 'new' problems, problems we maybe didn't even think about; Which is totally a different topic; Where all I mean to say at this instance is that we're at a point where we can't really change all that much anymore. We're aleardy 'in' those "post traumatic" structures that got/get established after periods of serious abuses of power - systems modelled to 'take' power away from single individuals and the over-arcing agenda of improving our day to day existence. According to the logic of power, ... the idea is to think of where "Hitlers" could still pop up - and I don't find anything really "new" either. Its just ... corporations and cartells. Entities that are stuck within this system of regulations, yet inwardly don't have a "Nationalistic Anatomy". Maybe. Anyhow - if we had to worry yet another from amongst us - its possible either of the two. Basically Corporations here in the west - because of their legal status - and Drug Cartells elsewhere ... like, well, technically ISIS. But thats just speculative.

Yet so we also get to the sphere of conspiracies and conspiracy theories. Its a shame how stupid some of you are though! You're pointing fingers at people who believe in conspiracies going on, laugh about them, yet - there are plenty conspiracy "theories" that have turned out to be true! Just sayin'!
But on the other end we have stories like 'Chemtrails' - yea, where I wonder: Proof to me that these chemicals are in the atmosphere and in our bodies ... and you got yourself a 'point'. But without points like that ... all you are is a 'popularistic entity' that propagates fear while mostly targetting specific political groups (yea, conspiracy theorists should know about those!) while knotting them up into punchwords such as "Lie Press" or "Illuminati" - so that we get to things like Hillary Clinton scratching herself, someone shouting "The debate was rigged", yet watching the debate you really don't see what they were the fuck talking about! So, argument being: She scratched herself to "get a Zinger". For that to be true the moderator would have had to ask her a question to lead up to that. Right? But if her opponent gave her the chance to "Zing in" ... we have to think that Hillary has been sending signals to Trump ... actually. Or you so find videos like "Must See! Trump exposes Illuminati" and all you get is some average Trump PR Interview with not the remotestestestest connection to anything Illuminati. Such things make me want to have that 'Delete' button - but we should all agree that its good that we don't have it. Alternatively we'd want something like a 'wall of shame' - which is then getting dangerously close to propaganda again. Alternatively we could all just agree to kill everyone with an IQ lower than 100. But clearly that isn't OK either!
And thats our modern days! There is - thats kindof 'mathematically so' - only "so much" you can do without running into these paradoxies. Therefore we have Democracy - and there is no 'rebooting' a democracy ... and the biggest enemy of any democracy is 'bad education'! My oppinion! (Note: If it seems that I am as of my contemporary situation biased and anti-Trump, yea ... he kindof ... asks for it!)


Mindblown? Well - it may even get better!

So, what can we learn from social correctness then? Well, first of all: We can learn that none of these things actually 'deal with' any idea or form of social correctness. So, my derivative conclusion thereof stands as: If we continue to think within these margins we continue to ignore social correctness and respectively engage into walking the same old circles, forever and always. Or, what is it like? Republicans win: War. Democrats win: They have to repair the damage. Once the damage is repaired: Republicans win! Rinse and repeat! I mean, there's a 9:10 chance I'd say that Trump is gonna start, uhm, or "start", yet another war. I suppose "they" have a deadline for screwing us all over ... which is gonna be 2027 I guess. But thats a different topic/issue.

So - now the "mindset" is basically setup for you to go on your own and find what we can learn from 'social correctness' - as: What happened 'if' we changed our approach on politics from Nationalism/Empirialism/Colonialism to "Socialism"? Well, it has to be some 'ism' - yet, for sake of argument lets call it 'making things betterism'.
Well ... because I'm not wanting to underestimate "them" - and you shouldn't either - I suppose that just sending you off on this note isn't gonna cut it. We need a few central examples ... foundational instances where we can really get a hang of how it helps us out in the grand total.
So - before I get started: Shoutout to 'Bill Nye' (the science guy). Its his work that basically led/inspired me to this. There's two videos. The first one I watched is labelled "What if all the ice melted on earth", and the second one is the other video he mentions therein. To be totally fair though: There's another channel, Alltime10s, which has some videos I watched prior to that, especially '10 countries that you didn't know existed' or something like that; And those are nice and neutral perspectives I think you may find interesting to watch (in context).

So, its about the Inuit. Its easy to see why we basically can't expect them to grow to any form of social wealth ... and how it therefore so happens that "we" 'kindof' 'do' 'force' them to either get extinct or to integrate themselves into our society. But thats not social correctness ... its empirialism. Yet, looking at how things are - they have a culture based on hunting in the polar region. Thats a thing we would allow them, but not all the other ... uhm, anyone else for that matter. What I propose is here however totally ... kindof undoable in our current society. What I imply is that there is only "us" (that is all the western wealth) and them. So, basically suggesting that the western world is 'one' entity. So, 'we' want some of the resources up there. Being socially correct we'd have to respect however, that their land doesn't belong to us. So, if we were to start at where they live ... offering them education and means to improve their lifestyle, not harming their culture, we would/could work it out that they get in charge of at least their territory ... as in, well, I'm almost certain that none of us would fare with their own homeland as we fare with theirs!
The problems with this kind of politics are similar to the problems of democracy. I mean, if someone gets elected that you don't like ... thats in about the same as them not playing along with us the way we'd want to. I mean - we can extend this political idea onto native americans in general; Where some people would then 'have to be' concerned about "what if they wanna kick us out?". Yet, most of the time we'd also have certain boundaries in mind - borders - and in terms of social correctness its eventually just better to go on your own. Maybe not better for you - at that point in time - but certainly better than perpetuating a conflict thats just gonna make things worse for everyone in the long run!
The idea clearly isn't 'profit'. The idea is more like: We ... our ancestors ... they were able to survive on 'local resources' - where all our global trade is mostly just luxury. And I still don't know where my immediate benefit from whaling is! It'd be different if it would support that local group - which also gives me a reason to prefer natural products above artificial stuffs - which is all in all ... well ... technically a win-win in terms of quality of life!

With this being the premise of development; Corporate greed and therefore issues such as corruption are nearly even unthinkable. As we could so phrase the motto: Whats good for them is good for us! A premise to that is that we 'give' them without expecting any returns; We give them based on the expectations that they see the benefits of cooperation; And one thing we really have going for "ourselves" 'is' education ... as furthermore medicine. I mean, at least in Hollywood that situation is a classic. There's stubborn leader, then someone dear to him gets injured, we help, everyone is happy. Its like planting a tree or something. What we offer is ... well, at first down to what we 'can' offer. They then have to take it in, thus nourishing it and helping it grow. On the long run, this kind of politics is the only kind of politics that can lead to anything good! I mean, so in the generalized terms. As ... what has to happen at first is that this 'Union' comes together in some way - and that isn't really an instance of 'one' power - well, except for 'one' in particular: Information. So - this would be a proposal of sorts and all the entities that have contact to/with it are now the 'first ring' - which would now come together and then shape this union - at which point its simply a co-operation of sorts. This will have to grow together - while beyond that the rest is simply 'outreach'. Although ... it maybe just 'sounds' simple.


Before all that we however 'need' ... well, still - and thats the flipside of the coin - the right leadership. As yea - it are 'people in charge' nonetheless that make all the decisions. Decisions like writing a letter or attending some meeting. I yea, really want to point a finger at how similar this is to the things mentioned upfront; In a way of saying: Its something like the first rule/law of making things right: The need to make it right. Well ... I mean ... it has to be done right. One thing is communication. The general sociological perspective I have there is, for starters, "still" - and yet explicitly so - a reflection between supporters and representatives. Thats just what we get to in a densely populated civilization. The 'relief' however is also implied therein, since ... the one and only 'goal' of this politics is growth - mostly 'introverted' growth. All outreach is 'external' stuff; It doesn't matter 'per se'. The paradigm of introverted growth 'there' comes into play as a form of science - as we would measure their progress in terms of levels of evolution. The most important aspect I see about it is that of cultural influences. Parents/Cultures are going to raise their kids according to how they do it - and while I grew up with "Tech Boxes" and 'wires' and plugs and all that - with western TV and access to all sorts of knowledge freely available - I have an inherantly different attachment to these things as someone who's raised in some semi-wilderness by parents that still used to hunt with wooden traps and spear. So - even if we met an Entity that is totally happy to join, one we could basically skip all the ordinary 'integration' concerns on, will need to be basically judged on its own merits. Uhm ... this is complicated - so, its a different topic and I don't have all the answers just yet.
Anyway - this yet isn't meant as a caution of exclusion - but a gesture of inclusion. Like ... opening a restaurant. You open the doors and wait for someone to come in.

So yea - maybe not so complicated at all. Anyhow. There's yet another thing more relevant right here. Communication - or good communication - isn't just or all about the way you communicate, but also 'what'. And for that matter I wanna look not at the Inuit, but at Astronomy. Simply put: Astronomy really is the peak of our civilzation/western culture. There recently has been an outcry about something that went on in some school in south africa, something about "decolonializing science". What the internet jumped on crying out about 'how stupid' - is something I can actually relate to. But again - its all about communication I guess. But so - we get to what is 'the peak' for once because modern Astronomy is 'beyond' Newton, and Newton is 'beyond' what 'not yet there' cultures know and understand. We're at a point where we learn of Astro-science from Quantum-science and about Quantum-science from Astro-science - which is well 'beyond' Einstein. That is even just a fragment of the mountain/tower that has to be climbed. Telescopes and Rader-dishes have to be built really accurately - which in parts is the same, yet still totally different, as launching rockets into space - and that doesn't even cover satellites yet. Its safe to say that "whatever" school you attend - if you're making it to the top, chances are that you can have a place in Astro-sciences! Even sports! I mean - being an Astronaut. And yea - artists! I mean - I'm a friend of arguing: If we wanna travel in space - then better 'with' than 'without': Style!

And art has it inherantly in itself - modern art at least, as what I want to say 'is' art - to 'break things apart'. Its the 3rd Dimension to any 2D picture. Art is there to always look at things from new angles. Art is free - art is conceptually logical, yet the logic usually is that of the artist - and nothing and nobody else. And because arts is creative - they have an inherant wire to the Universe as they are 'creators' just as 'the' creator who created the Universe.
And as I consider myself rather an artist than anything else - I also get to the next point: Everything I mention here yet stands there left to be corrected by folks that know certain things better! But I'm also trying to drive a course that doesn't really depend on that!

But yea - back to communications. The thing I wanted to look at is ... to look at Astronomy-folks/stuff as a separate Entity rather than an already part of us. Although in the actual sense I would look at it as yet more so at the center of what 'is' this 'us'. This would happen automatically. We wouldn't 'assimilate' it - its just due to the 'logical' connections that this once external Entity would factually 'move in'. Which is kindof silly to say - as it is actually the education itself that actually does this, or, would lead towards it. Before we then go on asking 'what' Astronomers do - we however yet simply imply that Astronomers do whatever they so happen to be curious about. It however gets more difficult when it gets to resources - things like building a spaceship. This is where in "my dreamworld" we wouldn't have that being a thing discussed behind closed doors - but a really transparent issue about facilities and their workload. Prior to making any decisions. When it gets to making decisions - and we set forth that there is nobody to actually make them - yea, thats where communication comes into play, as: How to settle it within a democracy/democratic-union. So - if my proposal is ever gonna flourish - we can't assume that 'we' are already as evolved as we would require an external entity to be before considering it "grown in". Thats ... the angle of comprehension I however meant to convey ... at least its a part thereof.

The point is really simple though, uhm ... yea - once more: The only way to really 'convey' how 'good' 'we' are - is to 'show' how good we are; And that can only be done by 'being' good - so that there is something to show. And yea - that takes me/us back to where I wanted to point a finger on how similar this is to all the bad stuff. I mean, there is no way to ensure that what we're gonna do/have isn't just propaganda - the only thing we 'can' do is to just 'not' make it that. But then again - thats a matter of finding the 'right' core ideals - the thing we/everyone does (want to?/...???) believe in - and making it so that those that support that idea are not going to get disappointed - which is inherantly a responsibility of the leadership. Kindof. In my book that goes a little further though, simply because 'leadership' -can be- abstracted; And the more abstract the idea of leadership gets ... the better, effectively, as simple rule of thumb. So - giving power to the press for instance; Thats a way of 'sharing' the responsibilities of communication with the "freedom market" - where what press is in my book can, related to our modern society, be best compared to 'drones'. Uhm ... robots? I mean - the things we use to look into places where we can't go. That because they are "our" eye - at least the eyes of those that operate them. Now, make that 'the press' - the !!!FREE!!! press - as filter between the drones and those operating them - and we got ourselves a more open society. That is yet in the hands of those in charge; And certainly is there no real safeguard against secrecy - while, sometimes the keeping of secrets may be important - ... but more important than that; The most important thing maybe: Is to 'grow' the ideals of 'social correctness' - so that 'for as long' as we/one believes in those, all doors are open! I mean - thats the ... "decisive factor/strategy"? I mean - today we for instance grow up with all those good ideals, but once it gets to being a grown-up, how many of those are actually ... 'feasible strategies'? More often than not does 'doing good' come hand in hand with 'making sacrifices'. That won't change - except that the kinds of sacrifices that are asked of us shouldn't be like our own limbs - but more like something we have plenty of. So, essentially: Stuff from our common treasury. But ... and thats also kindof worth mentioning as on the good side of things: It won't ever come to this unless we truely believe in these things! It starts by winning people for the matter. There is no promise of profit - no guarantee for success - just 'the chance' of making it happen. But at that we're then also pretty much without concurrence. Kindof. If there is a concurrence - we end up with two parties ... "again". If both do it right, they will become one again. Thats an inevitable and inherant property of this idea. If that won't happen - at least one of them is making things wrong! Until we compare that too much to modern democracy as it is! So yea, its all in all forever and always gonna revolve around 'the leadership'; Which are at first those that start working out the foundations, the tools, ... ... and for us today, what to take home from this?


For once - we can see, I believe, that 'social correctness' is more complicated than it would seem. More 'impossible' than anything else. And firstly a 'science of making the right sacrifices'. Therefore, at this point in time, I don't think I can see anything 'more important' than to just start thinking this way. Many do so already; Arguably thats what the western world is made up of. (And then the ... came in and ... so and so.) So - in that sense we're already 'on' the road. What has to happen though is to emphasize the meaning of 'social correctness' without making an 'ism' out of it. I mean - technically its an 'ism' nonetheless as mentioned; But ... its an 'ism' that can emerge from within any other 'ism' - just as Dictatorship does and can. I mean - what does "Socialism" propose? "This and that". Again - paradigms setup by someone or some ones ... paradigms we are to adhere to because of 'order' ... but order follows obediance, and obedience encourages dictators to do their nasty things. I believe for instance that Jesus Christ was inherantly an Anarchist. Well, yea - the god of the Old Testament was/is an Anarchist - unless we want to call it a Monarchy with however yet no human king. If you need a quick fix, I suppose you read the book of Samuel. Or anything from 'Judges' to 'Kings' (although you can skip on the larger part of 'Kings' ... it gets repetitive at some point). Uhm ... in characters that means everything between Samson and Saul/David. But for a really short one you just wanna know about the buildup to Saul being annointed as King. And actually checking something out for yourself wouldn't hurt you. Mark it as 'experience'. (And again: Its not about whether what God asked of Saul was fair or reasonable or not, its about what positions of Power come along with. The Judges can be excluded therefrom because there wasn't a thing you could do to become a Judge, other than being favourable in the eyes of God. If you were to ask for a 'let me try' kind of Judgedom - you'd ask to be given the power although you quite actually didn't deserve it! - Period!)

Anarchy is like Democracy - it yet requires us to get along; And thus basically inherantly calls for strong leaders on the one side, but also a fair share of common sense or how you wanna call it. If we want to make it 'good' - its the same. Its not like Democracy or Totalistic Dictatorship ever managed to get rid of those 'seeds of chaos' we all were to worry about an Anarchy. In the wrong hands its dangerous - and order in that sense is more of a 'common agreement' in ideals that determine what kinds of actions those that have the weapons are allowed to take. And yea - I get it: "I was onto something, botched it, and now all those smartasses mean to know it better". OK! Thats fine! Be smart about it! Thats what I meant to say/publish here! As said: Call it whatever you want! Uhm - yea! Thats the point! It doesn't matter how you call it - for as long as you know what it is - and understand it even if someone else has a different word for it. This attitude is in my oppinion the "Shoryuken of Liberty". I guess, thats a nice name for this article - all in all!


The Shoryuken of Liberty

by: Christopher Nikolaus Sonnberger. Friday the 18th of November - 2016 - 12:35 (or was it 11:35??? Forgot if I subtracted that one ... yea, how embarassing!).