China and Japan

What shall we do if there is a war in North Asia? Will there be a war? Does an Air Identification Zone(ADZ) considered as a sovereignty over a large bloc of sea and hence all rights over the area? There is a marked escalation of conflict in the North Asian region as a result of rising tension from power shifts in North Korea, a conflict over several offshore islands between China and Japan, similarly a marked aggression by Japan. This can only de-escalated through the use of discussion through various parties.

The balance of power within that region is extremely tenuous due rising powers, sleeping dragons and youthful aggression. It is painfully obvious that the next year will be the year of North Asia.

China and Japan will resolve the issue through brinkmanship and to temper the ambitions of Japan whose animal spirits have been tamed by its imperial past and decades of deflation. China will contend itself as finally a fully weighted fighter in the ring as oppose as a developing nation whose fortunes of billions hinges on it's stability. This means that the conflict now will have far reaching consequences for the future as it be used as template for future relations between the two nations.

The actions to declare some form of sovereignty over air space is to assert it's rights over the land and serve as a warning to everyone who intends to intrude the airspace. This has cause a tit-for-tat by Japan whom have an imperialistic history over China.

Japan is signaling to the world that they are intend to open for business again by stemming deflation, the markets has risen more than 50% in less than 2 years and they have beefed up their military spending openly.

China has showcased their refurbished aircraft carrier, their administrative might and diplomatic guile. The existing chess and strategic move by each side with calculated aggression is a signal that each side do not take each other lightly but rather treat each other equals.

A Japanese ship patrolling these contested waters alongside alongside an announcement of unilateral means of an ADZ means that each is testing each other's resolve. This would eventually be resolved by more urgent domestic priorities.

The gambit card is North Korea. The young dictator seems to want to impose his vision on the reclusive country in his own image and does not wish to follow the patterns of his late father. He wants to have capitalistic goods while maintaining an autocratic control over it's "communist" regime.

Any mistake by the young dictator could stir the waters and make calculated moves which often tends to the conservative side by China and more aggressive stance by Japan due to the competitive nature of South Korea- which could result in shifting economic priorities.

The dispute over contested waters will not be resolved in the near future and any signs of weakness by any side will signal an opportunity to assert its sovereignty over disputed islands.

The outcome, I believed will hinge on the sentiments of the Japanese people and not the Chinese. The Chinese is not known to be a seafaring nation and it has no wish to assert it's rights over waters which have negligible economic benefits with no well-known ports in under it's long coastline.

Racketeering

Emotional blackmail is the ability to coerce resources through means of emotive weaponry. This is contrasted with emotional persuasion through means of emotive messages. An example of emotional blackmail is the awareness and knowledge of emotional duress as a result of a particular speech or action in pursuing of an particular outcome or goal.

Racketeering where violence and harm is inflicted as a result of non-payment of consideration has a similar concept. This means that harm or violence is withdrawn resulting from the payment of money. Hence seen from this perspective, emotional blackmail means that emotional harm is not inflicted so long as demands are acceded.

The point of racketeering is that it can be inflicted by anonymous strangers and people whom you do not know. Emotional blackmail can only be inflicted by people whom you have an emotional attachment with and hence can only be inflicted by people whom you are familiar with.

I go to a place to place a threat and a second round, I demand payment and on the third, I inflict harm or place a threat again to ensure a continuance of payment. But what if, we can place emotional attachment and remove it at the second round in exchange for payment or accession of demands and on the third, we continue to attach emotions and also payment at the same time. This is what we mean by emotional blackmail and it can be done purposively and in a contrived manner.

Emotional persuasion aims to tug at your heartstrings and persuade rather than a threat of emotional violence. This means that rather than racketeering, I go straight to you and say that if you pay me money, your life will be better than status quo- that is call selling.

In any case or any forms of conventions or morality, the former is and will always be wrong. Firstly, racketeering causes harm, which is the same as emotional blackmail. The removal or the restraint of harm is the cause. This means that one can or cannot do harm with or without payment or condoning. The payment or accession is not the precondition for status quo. This means that with or without the vessel of harm, status quo should and must prevail.

The above is a normative statement simply because all forms of coercion is considered as harmful insofar that it does not causes further harm. This means that if my payment goes into reduction of harm as a whole then would it be considered as virtuous and good. But all racketeering and emotional blackmail is often more selfish purposes and even more good is done- it is often incidental and not as a result of purposeful action. A person who sweeps his own floor and causes dust to be disposed properly cannot be attributed for the reduction of asthma attacks simply because that is not his/her aim. Hence the same cannot be said of the racketeer or the emotional blackmailer.

I have been a victim of emotional blackmail for some time simply because I refuse to think that emotional blackmail is purview of men. This means that even if "emotional blackmail" is purposively done by a perpetrator- male or female, men have every right to reject it at every point in time simply because masculinity demands of it.

This is my personal view: men who consider women as a threat to their heart is in colloquial terms, a wuss. Men who consider other men as a direct threat to their heart is a gay and gays are an unnatural phenomenon. The above is highly stereotypical and sexist but unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that men/women, masculinity/ feminity is intertwined and cannot be untangled.

Take care folks.

A love story

The green man flashes.

" Should I make a dash for it?"

I ran across the crossing. The car skidded on the tarmac.

The next day, while I was going back home, the "green man" flashes. I was tired, I let it go.

Today, I dash across the flickering green man, I bumped into a girl carrying groceries, I smirked.

I waited for the green man this time round and even slowed my steps just to make sure the green man flashes. Yes, it does. This time, a scowling uncle spit past me.

I am in love with a girl. Her name is Sheila. No, she does not carries groceries all the time but I love her so.

She carries her brilliant smile all time and is nice to everyone. She pretends to like my "Metallica" T-shirt and even smile at it.

One day, while going back- I professed my love to her. She pushed me away and ask me to never talk to her again.

Today, I sit in front of my laptop waiting my email inbox to flash. It doesn't. I have to do something.

I made a video to post online a humour show and got 600 hits, I am happy. I did it again, slapping myself several times and somehow gave me more "likes".

Now I message Sheila my new channel, she avoids me and I wore my favourite "Metallica" t-shirt to get her attention. She trembles. I decided to be more direct- I dropped her a note. She tore it up in front of me, right in front of everyone.

I was scared.

I just started work. I got my first pay cheque and I wanted to treat Maggie to dinner after it. I was scared. I don't like Bryan. He sticks too close to her.

Bryan pisses me off. I ran across the flickering "green man". I came back a different man. No one crosses me anymore.

This time pay time.

Now I wait for anyone running across the green man, and with a leering eyes. Never cross the "flickering green man".

Getting tHere

I was reading a few Facebook posts and I begin to realize that everyone looks the same after they leave school, start work and get married.- especially after they get married. It is like universal that men look like boys and women look worn out. It almost looks like a carbon copy every single photo I see.

This is especially so with guys my age and how come they look like boys after they become fathers even after a few years. They really lack the teeth and really lack the cutting edge that was just visible a few years ago. It is almost painfully obvious that somehow, the years never catch up with the guys like time just seem to roll over for them. It is not just the look, it is literally the eyes as well. You know the wide-eyed wonder look that everything is new- even after they become fathers.

I am sorry that I am not married and neither am I a father- but my experience tell me that time with another woman in constant proximity can wear you down like how well worn tyres can wear you down.

Okay, no girlfriend for four years is quite a long time but unfortunately, the way I look at them, I really don't see why I should get one. I used to think that having a girlfriend, a wife or any form of emotional attachment is a burden because they can really slow you down in everything that you do. But it becomes rather apparent that the emotional attachment seems like a taboo in these photos. I know I am extremely critical of people whom are inauthentic but seriously, your wife, girlfriend and even your own children. It is almost embarrassing.

These photos almost feels like that they have given up something in exchange for something. Some seem primed for their life but for some really strange reason, they refuse to allow their qualities to shine. The best part is that they look photogenic while trying not to be. That is probably the reason for the emptiness- that looks the life is sucked right out off them during that moment.

I have to explained all these because it is increasingly apparent that I am leading an alternative lifestyle and my friends can't seem to find a stereotype for me to fit in. I really really want to start a relationship but unfortunately everytime, I see these photos, it scares the living daylights out of me.

I really prefer my lifestyle where I am not beholden to anyone and have no need for any pretenses just so that I will not anything stupid. This is because, they are my friends and we used to party, drink and study together. They are not as smart as me, granted but there is no reason to choose functionality over visceral living. It almost seems like they are cardboard cuttings.

Apparently, they are more social than me, have more parties and attend more functions- simply because they have a job, a wife, a house and maybe kids. My question is that how come they seem to be poster ads for insurance companies.

It is really true that I feel that I am missing something and actually it is not my doing that I see it from my viewpoint. But if you make a comparison of my lifestyle several years back, I really really don't want to go to that lifestyle.

My lifestyle revolves around work, meeting friends and maybe girlfriends, dates and actually 90% of the time is work. Now, with nothing at hand, some people are laughing at me, seriously with so much time at hand, you don't have the time to find one or even get one- it can't be right.

I almost did a few times simply because, I am not kidding- they all come all guns blazing. And truth be told, I am really afraid and scared of them- not for my life, but how my life will turn out if I give in.

And if I don't, I look at these photos, it scares me even more because at this rate, Simpsons- which is one of my most disliked shows- seems to be favorite show now.

Actually, I expect myself to be like that maybe wide-eyed and schoolboy like but worn out- but I have seen sufficient photos and attended enough weddings to tell me that I don't seem to be missing out on anything. I am not sure why.

I will get married but I am not tired enough, I will get there somehow but just not now.

Unemployment Woes

I am not working now. Some say that I should be depressed that a 32 year old graduate cannot find a job for two years and was being removed twice from the last two jobs. In truth, I am not. The point is that there are some people whom deemed better than me insofar that they in the belief that they are a better person or in a higher moral ground than I am and hence should and more suitable for the position. It would be true if I am electing for the job of a pastor or a nun.

The problem really lies I realize with women. I have no issues with men because in most cases, I am really more capable than me and they readily agree with me. But the point of it all is that women always sees me and still see me as a threat even when I am not working. I almost find it amazing.

Recently, I went for an interview as an Art Gallery Assistant. I met three young female art students whom are also competing for the job and me- as a Finance student with at least a decade my junior impress upon me that I am more suitable for the job. This means that I have no business being there. I have went for a lot of interviews before this and of course I will be more proficient in the job interview and I might even be more suitable for the job simply because I will probably sell better than some arty farty students.

In another incident, some male colleagues of mine constantly remind me that my female colleagues is always trying to snatch my visibility and limelight away from the bosses or those in the circle. They constantly claimed that they used the sexual diversion technique to divert my attention away and that of these men in power from the issue at hand and onto themselves. This is really nothing more than sex sells. Sometimes, I am guilty of it- I sells the best to aunties.

My grub is that these female colleagues always used my line and feign ignorance, they always pretend nothing will happen to them simply because they are women and I will not compete with them. This I have a beef with them and I have more than make known to my management many a times. They have this gender equality mentality and the best part is the used men- by telling them about my techniques and aligning their interest with theirs. Hence if I were to complain, I would be ungentlemanly. They sometimes think that I am an idiot.

Sometimes, it is so painfully obvious that everything comes back to me that no matter what they do, nothing will ever happen for them. This means that even if they were to do above, the point is that what is the cause of everything. Me- and even if I am narcissistic here, it is really so painfully obvious.

I recently went for post graduate studies in Finance and it has become really obvious to everyone that people simply believed that just because of this, I have offended a lot of mediocre people and therefore I am not fit for the job. I have no idea where this type of harebrained idea came from. A Finance post graduate bachelor with a stellar 3 years coupled with management conflict is NOT a bad thing. This is green card for everything. [ albeit I did not write the reasons for leaving in full black and white]

Perhaps, the market has depressed itself into a point of accepting post graduate students for a dime. But the point is not that I am not accepting market practices, the point is that some people want cheap, good and easily mouldable people and I am not one of them. I am already moulded, and changing me would be hard, I am not as cheap as when I just graduated and I am definitely not good- since I am willing to take on management several times.

Have a quiet thought and think about what my life is really made of. You will realize that depression is really my antidote and not poison.



 

Gender Wars

The gender wars has started. It has started in the kitchen and now it has spillover over from the private to the public sphere.  A few decades ago, it is given that men always rule the public sphere and women informally rule the private one. Women want to used men's institutions and their breast to take over the world

Men used guns and women used their breast and the legal system. You see that women can and will antagonize men into committing strange acts insofar that is within legal norms. But what they never realize is that men's weapons are meant for destruction- it always have the potential for that. Women's weapons are meant for nurturing and growth. In this case, women who used the legal system like for example the case of Silvio Berlusconi's case with a 18 year old prostitute- which I believed has happened many times before this- is really nothing more than a political gambit played on the poor young thing.

Women who invade your space is flirt, men who invade your space is harassment- simply because the victim is always the sufferer. Men who accused women of harassment is considered as a wuss and a wimp, women who accused men of even an inkling of anti-social behavior is considered as a sex maniac.

Present institutions are meant to control impulses, that of violence, lust and theft. These are mostly "male" like institutions. Can you imagine if a woman accuse a man of say sexual harassment just because he stare at her a second longer than usual. Potentially, all men will be criminals because that is under the Penal Code if we were to allow it. Let me give you another case of the legal institutions meant to control greed. The case of tort. This means that the law can and will accuse another person based on common law. This means that based on common practices and he/she caused harm based on shared norms- in this case a perpetrator- he/she can be sued for causing tort. There is no jail term but penalties can and will be jail term with it caused grievous harm.

Hence, in reality, even though superficially, a lot of countries have charter for women- a women's charter- potentially, the women can be countersued under tort provided she spread malicious rumors about the man. For example, a women seeks divorce and alimony from a her husband because of adultery. But she accused him of say rape in the household in the public, he can pay alimony and still counter sue the women for slander or libel. Of course that is the perspective from the man, I will leave the judicial powers aside.

Yes, it is true that women have been subjugated for a long time and it is time for some of payback. But unfortunately, the chair you are sitting is made by man who bought the land for the trees, paid for the capital equipment to mill it, and also send the log to the manufacturer before a craftsman or machine produce a mold out of it. Along the way, if a female woodcutter accuse another male woodcutter of sexual harassment without finding out the truth, there are also many ways to get the woman out of the way. She will make a mistake- regardless of whether it's a her or a he.

In sum, some middle class office worker dressed in Zara pencil skirt is really just vulnerable as this woodcutter. There is really no difference.

It's not the man's fault that you are born a woman. But we are just lucky, we are born men that's all. Sometimes you just have to suck it.

Santa Baby

How do you handle someone with a gift. Let's say you have the gift to grant someone any wish that they want- what would you do. Let's say you have you meet someone who have the ability to grant you any wish- what would you. The first have been covered so many times, let us talk about the second.

If I meet Santa Claus, how do I approach him and tell him what I want without being 1) rude 2) insensitive 3) impersonal. You tricked him.

No one has ever thought Santa Claus as a person but as a cardboard character whom you wish and expect to be given something. You see meeting Santa Claus is like meeting your grandfather or your boss whom grant you anything you want provided you are nice to him. If you treat Santa Claus as a stereotype and he/she really exist, you will end up always wishing and yearning for something. But if you meet your boss or grandfather, you can actually get something out of him/her.

If you really meet Santa Claus on the street and he/she doesn't tell you so, why don't you trick him/her like how you would treat your boss/grandfather into giving a brand new car or a promotion. You see it is twofold 1) he/she cannot do any wrong, so he/she cannot get angry for being tricked otherwise, he/she is not Santa Claus 2) You are being nice, by not stereotyping him/her.

No one actually told a story based on meeting Santa Claus, but always a story based on Santa Claus looking in. But in reality, everyone is your Santa Claus. This means that everyone that you meet is actually your potential Santa Claus. Every single person that you meet have the capability to be grant you wishes. This is because every single day, you are practicing an unequal power relationships with people whom you meet.

Every single day, you are nice to the person that is nasty to you and am loyal and faithful to your goal, your wish will be granted. Your grandfather will not like if you take the money for your brother's studies to be used to buy a new car and neither would your boss be happy if he/she promoted you because you suck up to him/her. The result is really the same, both of them will make you uncomfortable every single day until you stand up and own up to it- simply because you wish to personalize Santa Claus. But if you wish to have something and you really meet Santa Claus, all wishes must be sincere.

But if you see Santa Claus and did not make a wish not on purpose but feel that he/she is "off duty", you have finally understood the real meaning of Christmas. Everyone can make a wish but no one can grant you a wish but yourself.

Merry Christmas. A week early that is.

Muacks, kisses, ####%%%% does not equal UP UP UP UP

Existentialism is not a way of life. The point of existentialism is the dialectic between two competing ideologies and between the being and a state. It cannot be harnessed from the point of knowing- which puts it in a state of acting "for itself".

It has become a hegemonic state insofar that the state of being is aware of the situation. This means that when we act like an "existentialist", we have become a state of "for itself". This means that for example, when we knowingly act in conflict with another fully aware of the implications- for example, I act against my boss fully aware that I am an existentialist- which means that I have become a "state", this means that I acting within the confines of an existentialist. This combination of being a "existentialist" and also acting in conflict with the status quo is really acting for itself- insofar that he acting for itself. This means that it is no different from being say a "male" or a man acting like what one does.

So long as I can put a word to the definition of an "existentialist", I can easily put in a state of "for itself". In this particular manner, this means that without full experience of being "in itself", the state of "for itself" is simply acting like a "man".

Some have told me that I can simply look at my past with blind ignorance and accept that everything before was a whole mistake and hence we can start afresh. That is true, but what they never ever realized that the state of "for itself" imposes on "in itself" in a manner which puts not at conflict but in harmony. Think about the state of risk or danger, most of us will simply collapse both together and that is when we achieve a harmony.

A hegemonic state can be achieved at the state level simply by putting the populace constantly in danger. Take for example, a newspaper cutting on the recent race riot in Singapore. This is a hegemonic state- simply because nowhere in the developed world has a police car been burnt down and such an orderly dismissal of a riot. The only person and ruckus that caused is the damage of several police cars and a few unlucky cars. This did not caused a state of panic and put the populace at an "existential state" simply because, it is so painfully obvious that the incident- can be put as nothing more than a "flash" in a pan. This means that yes, once again it is a siege mentality and not state of existentialism crisis.

The first reaction was to post everything on youtube and laughed and make it like it was not a "riot" but really just some drunken people. Some people are really not happy about the situation about certain things. Just accept it. C'mon man, once you accept it. Life goes on as usual- and you realized and everyone will realized that we are never what it seems.

That's what exactly what education is all about. A few years ago, I wrote about existentialism and risk. This means that the precondition of all existentialism crisis and for a new identity to arise every single time is to take risk. Some people might have take it to the next level as a somatic and endorphin inducing mechanism.

Let me lay out the cause and effect sequence. 1) I see something I don't like 2) I keep quiet if it is risky and do something if there is nothing going on 3) It continues 4) I reassess again 5) It continues 6) I go back to 1. This is not an existential dilemma.

This is rationalism. I am continuing to compartmentalize all cause and effect to the point of manageable pieces before acting.

It is also argued that the existential crisis comes when 1) One I cannot bear it anymore 2) It is not to my disadvantage to act. The action then becomes a whole in one. This means that we have achieve praxis. A source of action deriving from change and theory.

If you can look above, we have a riot in Singapore- the first in 40 years. property prices continue to go up. Everyone is coming to Singapore. Don't you think this is the real "existential" crisis.

But people go about doing their own matters like property prices will continue to go up forever. The argument was Singapore was a nanny state and I began to think that Singapore has become a "nannied" state that everything is sunshine and roses.

Anyway, I will leave it to these people who has the belief that they are nothing more than a speck of sand in the ocean. If they feel these things are out of their control, and then so be it. Just hopes that when the waves come, they will be swept in the direction.

P/S: I have every confidence in the Singapore economy and society that's why I am staying put. We have our own "pussy riot" right here in Singapore.

Have a cupcake and high tea

I have written quite a number of things about women but I think it is time that I say something about women at least from my perspective. When I was younger, I used to have ambitions. I have ambitions about many things in my life- about wealth, status and power. But as I grow older, I began to realize that I have to make a lot of adjustments in my life in order to gain the above. The first thing to go is the ability to say anything I want and screwed up. The next thing to go is the ability to handle people whom are envious of you- which means you must learn to be prepared to be alone and lastly I learnt which I forgot a long time ago is humility- the ability to roll with the punches and criticisms from all corners.

Let me just said that I have reach a certain level in my life and I used to think that women have quite divergent views on the above. It is my belief that the order is 1) status 2) wealth 3) power. But I am constantly amazed at the ability of women to constantly come back from punches that I believed that they have more power and wish to have more power than I expected.

Call me a chauvinist and I believed that some people, and if not a lot of people will disagree that men will continue and will not dominating the arena insofar that the structures are always in their favour. All institutions are built according to men's ability to negotiate power relations and not the ability to demonstrate their strengths.

I have began to noticed that women's present hunger for power stems from a foolhardy wish to believe that there is no such thing as scarcity. No war, conflict and armed battles doesn't mean that there is too much to go around. We do not have a major war for last 50 years, does not mean that all is fine and dandy out in the political field.

Capitalism only solve the issue of scarcity but it does not mean that demand is simply generated by need. It can be generated by past experience, paranoia and deterrence. This means that the guns and butter issue is not solved simply by producing more butter for everyone so that people don't need to produce guns simply because disrupting it means having less butter.

Hence women our age have experienced an unprecedented age of prosperity, emancipation and status that they forgot that chemical weapons was just used in the 1970s. They have gone to their head that simply by producing more butter, they can increase the price of producing more guns. This means that they forgot all institutions are predicated on a negotiation of powers and not producing more of the same thing. All private and public entities are institutions with managing resources as their ultimate end and not production of any given good.

Governments can and will produce more guns especially if they have capability and need to do so regardless of whether they are more producing an enormous amount of butter via technology or other legal means.

This means that women whom lived in the Generation X onwards is at the belief that peace is a given and therefore that whoever can procure the most resources is the biggest winner. But they forget that labour market and economy is always built on the backs of well regulated and protected society and country.

There is a saying that goes: whatever you cannot protect is not your's. This means that even if you are the most prosperous country in the world, and the next door neighbor points the gun at you, you will have to give up the gold- and all of it.

This means that the women who walks the shopping malls, who walks the grade A offices and who grace society's magazine believes that just because you are doing so, you are in control of all aspects of societies. In order to produce these butter, the tower have to be earthquake proof, the airspace have to be cleared and the land below is privately held and protected by highest law of the land- the Constitution.

It is not the job of women, they often say- hence whatever said above is all load of bullocks, it is understood. Since the Constitution is equal between all citizens of the land, women hence have all the right to hold all positions of power.

This is not a matter of constitutional power nor rights of any given individual, it is the fact that all institutions are really organizations of war. This means that all organizations can and will be tilted towards conflict even if the private production of butter subsumed the production of guns. It is still on the curve and the produce produced is made into other forms of strategic resources. This is not just a matter of military hardware but at the same time, a matter of liberal relations ensuring a balance of power.

We are not at the point where war is not a given. Our institutions can and will be titled towards war simply pressing the button of a major power regardless of whether we give them lots of butter. The trains and buses that we sit on everyday is simply safe not because we take all necessary precautions- it is because someone have ensured that the guns are not pointing at us- and that is definitely not the one sitting on the train or on the bus.

I just like to tell all the women whom have across this article that even if you strip naked in front of the gun, we might still shoot you because, we are more interested in other things. That thing is greed. We can take you and the land that you are standing on simply by pointing the gun at you.

All institutions can and will be turned to this end- and that is why, do not watch the CNN anymore. You really don't know who owns and what drives CNN anymore.

Have a cupcake and high tea but just don't shove it in our face.

John Holmes is not a Pagan

We can always aim to get for what we want. There are several words for this ambition, love, greed and lust. It all means for one single thing- we wish to possess that one single thing that eludes us. We can be satisfied or contended but we can never stop wanting more- that is the crux. We can never have too much money and we can never have too much of a good thing.

There are some people whom try amazingly hard for that one thing that constantly eludes them to the point which it consumes their self and identity and that is when you know that this person has absolutely lost his/her mind.

We cannot be consumed by that one single thing and pretend that it doesn't dominate our personality and pretend that it does not have a bearing in our future outcomes, decisions and life.

Ambition like everything else is tied together your willingness to strive for something that does not come to you naturally. Is women and sex part of this ambition and let us say that we separate that from love and lust. I don't know you, you tell me.

John Holmes, a porn star in the 60s with a 6 inch dick slept with thousands of women and has a movie made about his life. I really do not see how does this consider this as an ambition, a life goal and achievement. This can be considered as a bragging rights as trash talk and side way gossip but that is not an ambition.

By the way, the early Romans whom are pagans slept with both boys and women as a manner of status and not power relationships per se. This means that the ability to sleep with both servant boys and girls is a demonstration of power and not a matter of servitude. [ That is a given]

From the perspective of the servant, both boys and girls do not expect their sexual favors to be returned in favor simply because they are "servants" and not "prostitutes". The order is set even beyond the relationship has started.

By pagans, this means the worship of deities and other animalistic idols and the worship of one single god that decides on everything.

In today's world, even if you are not a Christian or not part of any monotheistic or multi-theistic religion, such conception is considered deviant and will always be considered as deviant. This means that even if you are Mormon, which practices polygamy, you are expected to respect the laws of the lands which supersedes over all other's even if your thinking allows it to be so. This means that even if you a Free Thinker or a self-professed Mormon and the land practices religious tolerance, it still doesn't mean that acts paganism of the above is tolerated.

Paganism have a "bad" name simply because it is natural and almost like "free-for-all" but it really has it's rules wrapped around the above relationship, unless you consider yourself a social deviant, you will not be and does not expect your thoughts, let alone your acts be condoned.

Islam is not paganism simply because they are rules regarding polygamy relationship and is not a matter of "master/slave" relationship. But is really more of a matter of conventional monogamy relationship.

Hence, if you have ambitions of having multiple wives and mistress, do not for one moment think that people will accept it openly. They will not, unless you live in an era which universal suffrage does not exist. This means all men are equal even if their treatment is not.

I urge everyone whom believed that having a vibrant sex life surrounded by sex slaves which feeds you grapes and wine every single day to take your head out the land buried by the ashes of Mount Vesuvius and look around you, there is no such thing as free lunch.

Sex and Money Tradeoff

I used to say that everything and all choices are relative. This means that decisions are all made of context and environment. I have began to realise that people, men especially put an extra premium on sex, relationships and love now. This means that they put in so much effort in impressing the opposite sex and making sure that the above three goes their way that they seem to sacrifice everything in their way.

I think I have riled and run down quite a few young guys with the last few posts and there are some old men that want to have a say in the whole argument. In reality, the whole argument is just simply simple and quick observations wrapped around some thoughts and ideas in my head that's all.

But I have began to notice some old men really out a lot more premium into these three things. It is really true that we are getting richer and more comfortable and there is no other age more appropriate that there is no tradeoff between sex and money than old age.

But I have began to notice this really strange phenomenon that just because you are old and with some form respectability, it means that sex with younger women is a given. It is not a given simply because there is no tradeoff between money and sex.

Of course the thought of wrinkly and sagging skin on top of young and virile woman is extremely disgusting but this thought never seem to cross the thoughts of old men with loosening skin. There is a loosening of sexual mores- that's for sure- sex for money is really not as strongly frown as they used to be say a few decades ago; but nonetheless it also does not mean that that the "unnatural" nature of it comes to play.

I have always evoked the "biological determinism" argument to support certain propositions that seem a little "different.". But this is not the place to evoke "biological determinism" simply for one reason, everything goes to shit after sexual transmitted disease and 35 for women. Hence this counter argument is not only non-scientific, it is also morally wrong in all context.

Just because old men with money with no tradeoff with money/sex does not make it any right for an old men to assert it's sexual rights over younger women. Just as long as the tradeoff is not sex and survival, the morality really stands quite strong on it's own.

Just now at the traffic junction an old man ran so much faster ahead of me as if like there was a piece of meat in front when he saw a sweet young thing in front of him. I mean he is not going to rape her but the idea already put really strange thoughts in his head.

Old men with sweet young things has been going on for a long time and it will probably carry on for a long time simply because the unequal power relationship makes enticing for both parties. But as I said that it is frown upon and will continue to be frown upon- not just because now old men with money can afford sweet young things and they are getting more materialistic but rather the realities and practicalities of entire situation is really "unnatural" in all forms of arrangements "scientific" or otherwise.

I have reached a age where sex is no longer as important as it is suppose to be. This means that I can go with or without it. But it really doesn't mean that I don't notice what other's are doing around me. Sometimes, the manner which old men conduct themselves in public is almost disgraceful that it smacks almost that the only justification holding their act together is this money/sex tradeoff thing.

We should not do think of all sorts of ways to get sex but it doesn't means that just because we have nothing to lose means that it is our god given right to pursue with wild abundance.

[ Get a red sports car for crying out. If not get one from "Matchbox"]

Tech Geeks Converge!!

When you are 10, you look at breasts and have a certain amount of disgust.
When you are 12, you are a little bewildered by them.
When you are 15, you have dreams of touching them.
When you are 17, you wish to touch a lot more of them.
When you are 21, you look at the cleavages and not breasts.
When you are 25, you should have touch quite a number of them.
When you are 28, normally you have only one pair to touch.
When you are 31, you prefer papayas over breasts- you least they can be eaten.

The above is like what a lot of men gone through. Mine ends at between 25-27, and that's when everything differs from there.

You see men's relationship with breasts is directly correlated with the ability to hold a proper relationship. The above is typical of guy whom have mess around abit when you are younger and settle down abit later. But some have an eternal relationship with them and for that I have to digress.

After a certain age, women or breasts in particular really seems all the same. It is like they have exactly the same goal in life, just like what they call in tech talk- the "form factor" differs.

Everyone-at least most of us- will realize at a certain point in our life that all women wants to do is get married and have kids- and once again the "form factor" differs that's all.

You will never realize that until you are 31 and that's when you realize that you have been conned your entire life that your relationship with breasts is nothing more than a fantasy built by women to conned men out of their cave and shell. By that, I mean that not in a complimentary way. I mean it in a animalistic way. We are meant to beat women on their head with a stick- but our relationship with breasts means that we will never hit them on their head with a stick- because the breasts will not be perfectly formed.

When at 31, you will realize that the papayas you faced everyday, is not worth the effort of going to the gym for a workout, a $50 haircut and even the knock-down sedan you drive [ because quietly you prefer the Mazda 6 because the former plays the numbers game way better].

You regret it now and even if you tell everyone else that comes after you, they refuse to pay attention to you because you are degrading them. But let me tell you, the plums you see will turn to papayas really soon.

All your bravura is nothing more than an instinct to protect young and virile women whom have not have their plums turn to papayas. And they are impressed only because the form factor is just different, you idiot. Inside, everything is the same- just like a Samsung and Apple phone. The difference is the features, one have a Siri voice who gets it wrong but oh so cute, the other is simply change the way they unlock the phone that's all.

I am telling you above, not because that I am highly experienced. I am telling you all these simply because, you are really putting way too much effort into something comes in all shapes and sizes. Your relationship with breasts has ruined you simply because breasts is not marriage- papayas are.

There are a million of women with different shapes of breasts, some are perky, some have large auerola, some have asymmetrical breasts- but why the hell do you try to have the biggest muscles to complement the nice perky B cup breasts. These breasts homed in only one single thing- your reaction when they turn to pineapples.

We all know Oracle works way better than windows but unfortunately, Windows complements us- Oracles is for tech insiders. Your B cup perky breasts will not turn to papayas but only with you beat Windows, you idiot.

My suggestion is that take the above seriously when at 31, focus on getting a new and upgraded Windows and screw Oracle. Otherwise, you will end up just like me. At 31, all Windows users are idiots and you will be alone most of the time.

Jane Austen does not exist.

A few days ago, I talked about the so-called open nature of female sexuality which is another word for "female emancipation." Let us just then put in more general terms- can we use sexuality as a justification- for "love", let us put aside the romantic notions- but use it for starting long-term relationships.

Just last century, female restraint on open display of romance is seen as a "come-hither", this means that "I am a good girl, and that is my attraction." but in recent decades, such notion appears to be more like "I am a good girl so I am expensive and therefore you better watch out." This is just one step away from " I am a bad girl so you better watch out."

This means that "a good girl" is really insofar not as "relationship material", but rather put on the shop window to be sold and consumed. This means that "such girls" don't exist but only in dreams and fantasy. And only "slutty" girls are considered as " relationship material".

There is a "loosening" of sexual monogamy but I really do not consider that as a loosening of moral standards. Chastity is important only if you cannot predict when your next child will come next. I really do not think that sexual standards is a function of higher morality but rather as an expression of love and affection. Given a choice, they would choose a condom over abstaining- let's be blunt here.

Having clear that out of the way, I really don't see how sexuality- male or female- cannot form the basis of a long term relationship. This does not mean promiscuity but rather an expression of it since the act itself is a choice.

Such conception of the "bridesmaid on the shop window" is simply confusing "loosening morality" with more "open sexual relations."- unless your beliefs or values run contrary to it, this argument is simply built on fantasy- who wants a slut for a wife.

Values and beliefs is a function of two forms of social control 1) emotional 2) social. Emotional means that when you commit pre-marital sex and you feel "guilty" about it, that's when you practice restraint. But it's really difficult in today's constant message of "sex" in mass media. 2) This means you fear being the talk of the town. This is not "values" or "beliefs" but rather a matter of surface acting. The point is why are you practicing restraint for what ends.

Hence if you have a slut for a wife- how then does it enhance your personal standing if your wife sleeps around and you don't- even for both conception of values and beliefs. This continues to puzzles me.

This slut for a wife fantasy is built on this mass media message of "sex sells". Everything related to "sex" sells. This means that if my wife is a slut, this means I am extremely marketable. But in truth, sex sells, if you really selling something sexy. Let us put it this way: how do you use sex to sell "man's shoes." Yes, that answer is in your head.

How then do you use sexuality as a basis for a long term relationship? Yes, once again you got it. Have lots of sex, have a lot of rubber on end, practice the clock and really if that is so important to you: morning after pills.

[ And you don't need to tell the whole world about it]

On bustiers and Fan boys with Bustier fetish

I am really just out of touch with the going-on of the world. But truth be told, I am just so used to seeing the world in major and super powers that I forget sometimes to see things on the micro levels. You see that the world now, I see is how the world is projected to be in say a hundred years from now. This means that from my view nowadays, I see how people are interacting on a day to day action and see how people will be like in say a few decades from now. Leaving the really intellectual things aside, the level I am seeing is simply how people really wants to start a relationship.

You see last year, I sold my car- which I have been driving for 10 years and started taking the trains. The trains is real eye opener. Sometimes, I think Texas landed on the train or little Sutton Town in England resettled in Jurong East and suddenly Burmese became rich overnight and we all start to speak Cantonese rather than English. It was quite funny.

Economics, Finance, it's all numbers, politics is all about who, when and how one gets and well society is really build on these tiny little actions which caused the Haiyan typhoon in 50 years time. Women are aggressive and they really are trying swallow up everything and anything they can while they are still young regardless of what and where it is.

They assert their opinions on everything from your height, weight, your hair and even your vegetable stuck on your lips. It's really a microcosm of society evolution. Men almost seems helpless in these situations simply because in these politically correct age, any form overt sexual dominance is like a attracting unnecessary stares from all sexes. I am still have not seen anyone having sex on the train yet though- but some are quite scandalous if you can see their drift.

Some women flirt so openly in tight spaces that they are simply asking to be raped right in the middle of the train that they are not afraid of flaunting their "youthful" sexual energy that they deemed so appropriate to anyone whom is so willingly to even reciprocate. The 60s have gone and past. Yoko Ono started a revolution on the bed with John Lennon and it has long past. He was shot for being a "Dreamer".

These East/West debate of decadence and conservatism is simply old school. No one does nor say it nowadays but, we know that listening to "Bad Romance" and "Lana Del Rey" is not healthy. These wave of "shall" I say " sexual power", is simply letting laziness by the backdoor. Women tingle, men get tickled- that has always been true, but you see that the flirting is nothing more than "I am in charge" rather than "I am comfortable with myself." Once the card gets out of value, everyone dashes out of the gates like everyone else.

I have not worked for about two years, but it can  be said that women have this tendency to flirt with everyone whom wants to be flirted with- and anyone who wants to be flirted with, have this very strange misconception that it will end there. It will not end there. When I was working a few years, I can tell you that women were not flirting with me, they literally want to ask me out simply because I refuse to allow them to flirt with me. I am not saying out of self-congratulatory simply because the truth is that I am really out of touch of the scene for so long that I really have no idea what the hell they see in me. My idea, is dinner or drinks and end of story. Sorry, I have no other ideas beyond this rather plain encounters.

Hence you see on that level, I consider their flirtation as highly inappropriate, unprofessional and extremely rude. It is true that men are animals but it doesn't mean that we don't observe distance.

On the train, I began to realize that these women were shall I say have a high minded of themselves in which men complied, not out of admiration, but really out of resignation in face of social pressure. The thing is that they take rejection personally and have no qualms about showing their displeasure. It is clear that women really have quite little respect for themselves or their body. I am not being Victorian.

One of these days, I must really show them the six pecs just to convinced them they are wrong. How would you feel if Superman came in and sit beside you in his underwear outside in. He is good-looking and he is a hero, yes but so what. You don't have his number, and neither do you know what he like and on which level, does one consider a Superman flirting with someone appropriate. None. And what makes these women- who thinks they are Wonder Woman wearing a bustier right to assert their sexuality so openly.

Victoria Secrets aside, they are not wonder woman- and Wonder Woman wears a bustier simply because she can swing the arms at lecherous men and not the other way around.

And when you see that these nice little working ladies, so dainty and so eloquent, start shifting their pencil skirts- everyone is suppose to care and really, the people that cares are the lecherous men whom ogled and feign innocence.

These wanton demonstration of their sexuality will have this simple effect of attracting weird men from all over the world thinking that the MRT trains of the world is the Victoria Secrets Runway Show. Houston is landing, little Yeovil Town has been mapped and I don't even know where Sengkang is.

Anyway, the point of all these is that to castigate them will have the opposite effect, to put a chastity belt on them is simply draconian, to allow them to dominate is simply assault on the senses- the time and age is for us to simply ignore them. Gay, or gay or not gay, let them castigate us instead. What is the big deal. We have don't have the six pecs and we don't have Chippendale bodies, but excuse me, we really don't need to be complimentary to strange women in bustiers. We have porn excuse me. Go make some perhaps.

Nights

P/S: tap in and tap out- little Maine in New York is in town and Salim from Pontianak is coming to watch the show.



 

Flies on the Wall

[No racist nor xenophobic undertones intended but rather as an overture though]

Where has all the angmohs go? I was at the foodcourt earlier in my suburban little home and I saw no less than 5-6 "angmoh-related" couples. Where has this angmoh assault on the Singapore heartland come from? They come dress in their understated ang moh style and also they really none the "self-effacing" attitude in blending into crowd- it really feels kind of uncomfortable.

Maybe this is the reality of a reverse colonial hungup. This means that not recognizing their colonial superiority but as an equal, has an opposite effect of making us feel that they really want to be like us. But the reality is that it is extremely difficult- the point is that we feel guilty for treating them as an equal because in reality in their 2000 year psyche, they really think that they are better than us. It makes me as "globalized" Asian with both foots in East and West extremely guilty for making them feel humble. That's not what being Asian is about- we welcome people, but really you don't need to sink to our level- you just be yourself, that is fine by us.

This assault on the Singapore heartland by angmohs is twofold- 1) they really are participant observer taking part in an anthropological exercise of their own of mixing in the backbone of Singapore economy and society. But you see all anthropologists make the same mistake of thinking that they are the "fly on the wall" which means that we treat them as we would treat as if they were not there, how untrue, can that be. Hence they have the distinct belief in the "what I see is what I get" epistemological fallacy.

How then do they attempt to bridge this knowledge barrier- stop pretending to be like us- for crying out loud!! Once you realize that you cannot be like us, not because you are not the fly on the wall, but rather you are also part of mise-en-scene which means that how we approach the entire social situation is entirely different when you are there or not there.

The funny thing is that they are all men with Singaporean women and not "angmoh" women with local men. Let us put it this way to the "angmoh" guys out there, the women know something that we don't. They speak the truth and insofar that if it is going to take another 2000 year social baggage to get rid, then it will really take 2000 years to get rid of the 2000 year historical baggage. It doesn't matter whether we are Christian or Muslims, it simply is that anyone with Lincoln name, Washington or Smith name is immediately associated with the King of England- which is rather strange actually- because since, apparently, South East Asians is one of the biggest buyers of London property.

To state a matter of fact, it is not that we- or at least for myself is afraid of "angmoh" ladies- we simply are being self-effacing by not wanting to humble themselves from a 2000 year tradition in a matter of 50 years. We are just fair like that.

P/S: I know the above is bothering on offensive an racist undertones is extremely harsh, but there are really no white flies in reality. [ Get it, Get it]

Buying Hope

Which one do you prefer- keeping your dream alive or keeping your hope alive? And thereafter, which one do you prefer, making sure that your dream is kept alive or trying to keep your dream alive? People faced with the same dilemmas every single day, always pretending that hope is the only dream and hope is their the most precious resource.

Personal experiences tell me that there are two types of people whom will succeed. 1) People whom have achieved their dream 2) People whom believed that dreams are an never ending story. The first seek an eventual outcome and ensure a tangible achievement of objectives or dreams, the second says that their dream is always improving themselves.

Their dreams is therefore to ensure that they are to make it another day so as to say that their dream is always getting closer but in reality, they are always getting further and further away from their goals in life.

A simple example is one ex-colleague that used to tell me that think of the money you earned at the end of the day and forget about everything else. Such an argument is simply adopting an attitude of the second or of apathy. Apathy I think is a given in today's world but what makes them turning up for work every single day: money- at the end of the day- this means that they can go another mile further into independence.

Let us just be clear that I was never this person and still am not this person. I can tell you that I have achieved everything that I set out to achieve and more- anything more further is simply pushing the limits of other's. This means that even though I might not be at the same level as my friends maybe 20 years from now- but I know what they gone through to reach that level. I have pushed that limit and they are having cash in the pocket simply because they did not push the boundaries.

The boundaries is one very simple idea: they have given up agency for the sake of status. Without agency, all ambition, dreams and wishes are meaningless. It is rather simple in the sense that they have been in a better position simply for that one reason I have never wanted to say 1) They do not believe they are good enough. This means that they have been traded off something in their live to achieve whatever their status for the future or for the present moment.

A very good example is that I was promoted to a product manager before I was 30 and handling a $100 million portfolio for the very reason that I think I was good enough and I did not traded any of my views for those of my superior. This means that I ran people down for their and company's own sake and not to align my interest with theirs.

Politics aside, the ability to achieve your own ambitions is the very hallmark of satisfaction and contentment in life. The inability insofar to navigate your dreams beyond corruptive nature of power means that their ambitions and all dreams is wayward, corrupted and traded- which in it's own words useless as a dream or ambition. Hence if your word weighs no clout in spite of your post- your is a piece of hope which is bought by your monthly salary- but in truth, your own hope in life is just that everyone is happy with you, period.

I know some of my friend's personality and I know some whom made and whom did not. Those that did not, are not those who are considered to be "politically correct" or "politically unchallenged", but rather those that hold that we all have a vision, and it is our job to impose our vision onto everyone else whom is related to our job. Those that are incapable to do so, are simply, what we call in the "rat race" or stuck on the "corporate ladder." This means that they are there simply to climb the ladder, and are considered "incapable" by conventional "wisdom".

I was promoted the fastest, have the most visibility and have the most glamorous and the most accolades from the employers and, excuse me, I pissed off a lot of my colleagues except my bosses. I am really not "politically challenged." The stark difference between work and school, is there I consider all leadership position in the latter as a burden and the former as a duty. Of course, you didn't see me in school, you stupid.

And hence insofar that having hit what I would consider as a personal achievement, I really do not see how much farther I can go before I will have to be like Steve Jobs and pretend everyone else is my underling. Surprisingly, to  my very own surprise, informally, they do and they still do.

You see, I don't hope, there is no way, I can and will be the CEO or a director of a major corporation simply because I made so many enemies with people whom have overlapping interest with my those whom are guarding my interest or still consider me as an inspiration. Those in the former consider their job is smear my inspiration or at least my reputation that I have built over a short time, the those in the latter, consider their job to attack these people whom constantly continue to smear or bring down my reputation. This means that in spite of personal preferences, it is painfully clear who is buying the hope that their life is built around their capability and ability.

It is for these people that I have to say, I really have nothing against you. But you make it your business to buy hope from people whom are trying to maintain a level of decency which pisses me off. Hope is free, my dear boy. Just look up. Being answered is another question altogether.

Whose Socrates now?

How do you rise to top without pretending that you have not reach the peak? What used to be true, can quickly changed into something almost something illusory insofar that your goals or objectives changed. In this world that we lived in, material and creature comforts trumps above everything else- and the insatiable appetite for life often goes amissed after a few years where leisure takes precedence over ambition, life and vitality.

In today's world, scarcity is almost out of sight and the throbbing and adrenaline pumping drive for survival is almost missing where signs are placed for you and directed to exactly where you need and what you need- this personal striving for what people take for granted- the meaning of life. It is almost told that we should be contended, satisfied and all the more in bliss with our station in life- that morality has become the live du jour of our life. This means that so long as we pretend or  believe what is right- everything should and always come our way.  The strength from the belief that what is our is ours and what is not can be and should be rightfully ours insofar that it is god- given right. This serves a very simple purpose of ensuring long standing creature comforts and every stable status quo complemented by a long life of leisure.

It used to be that governments and other forms of institutions whom institutionalized panic is the target board- this means that governments whom continually to "scare" citizens have no right in doing so. The present age in this case, is that the people have outsmarted themselves that everything else is just a "scare" tactic and none of this is real- and it is merely a propaganda tool merely to keep people in it's place. Hence people today are not scared, they merely skeptical, sarcastic and absolutely ambivalent about live around them. They don't know what is real and what is not- so they think all is fake and wait for the real thing to happen before they deal with it- and even then, organizations will handle in manner which reduces panic and uncertainty.

The mood of the day especially in many from the young to the old is that, since we are not sacred of anyone- why don't we scare each other just to make sure that we know we are alive. The most interesting thing about times of these days is that the "scare" is not back by anything other than a primordial instinct towards anything different or strange. The mafia does not exist, the yakuza has disappeared and tattoos is nothing more than body art and not a symbol of anything powerful. Why does anyone even bother to try to deny that their lives are in danger.

Hence, there is a very real and distinct belief that the status quo will continue and perpetuate itself in a manner which insofar that nothing "deviant" or "morally" wrong happens, things will be fine. Even strange and unnatural deaths or crimes can be explained away simply by pretending these are good people trying- not to beat the system- but rather trying to "responsibly" shift their duties away in areas which allows them to thrive. This is like asking a customer to go to another store simply because we are selling things more expensive than the one next door- and we really do not mind getting bankrupt because we are just not good enough and don't even want to try- because trying means destroying the business next door.

The morality of people nowadays is driven towards not against doing good but a sort of- I am safe, you are safe and so let's not do anything different just so everyone can be safe. This is not morality, but a religion and belief surrounding contentment and satisfaction towards one's station in life. It is almost Christian in it's belief but it is been turn on it's head because the crux is not to increase suffering but rather inculcate and breed hard work and not to discourage risk and utilizing your talents and skills.

The people have been tired of fighting the "lies" and "propaganda" of the government and big organizations but it did itself in by simply burying the head the ground and pasting on it's butt with a sign which says: " I simply don't care, so move me." And then it pretends that the head is not in the sand because it is fed by intravenous drip. [ You have to feed me, because it is your job. So try me.]

The only time, it start to cry foul is for one simple reason, the elections.

[ The hemlock is served back on the people]

The poor old lady

Will you ever help an outsider? Under what circumstances would you help an outsider? And must there be a social contract tied to helping an outsider- this means that, does the principle of reciprocity does not apply to people of the same "place? This means that, only self-interest supersedes all needs to maintain a cordial and proper social relationship. This means that this person will have outside interest or does not have the same objective as "us" hence, all actions is pro quid quo.

When I mean us, it means people of different "categories" and affinities. When I see a visitor, do I treat him/her with respect but with distance but at the same time, not allowing overlapping interest to happen. This means this guest can consume he/she wants but unless I offer to him/her. Whatever the motive is besides the point.

I will argue at this point the salience of any categories or affinities but rather, if an "outsider" comes and offers help, does it mean that he/she wants to placed common interest with you. Let us put aside the idea of a good Samaritan or altruism. Why does a person feel toxic that an "outsider" offers something but without "something" in return so to speak. Under what cirumstances does the above scenario feels uncomfortable for the host, so to speak.

Let us, just say, I knock on the door and offer to clean the house for free- you will say I am crazy. But what if I tell you that I have a professional housecleaner and I done with my job hence out of coincidence, I offer to help- does it mean that I am going to steal things from your home or really trying to be nice and gain acceptance from you.

Why can't altruism, in this case, be one-sided, this means that I offer to help, but it doesn't mean that you accept but it doesn't mean that I cannot be nice to you. You might think I am toxic, but it doesn't mean that I think I am toxic and how does making feel me toxic make you any worse as an opposite party. This means that I feel good, I want to make you feel but you reject me, does it make me any worse. No.

This means that as an outsider, I am not asking for acceptance, I am going in to help you. You might not like me, but it doesn't stop me from asking, isn't it- and feeling good at the same time. And of course, you might not feel comfortable but how does you not feeling comfortable got to do with an outsider helping you.

We might not have common interest but I have my own interest, and if you don't feel comfortable with the entire arrangement- how does your opinion affect the opinion of myself.

I am OFFERING help, and it is your job to accept or reject- how has that got to do with being an outsider, an insider or anything else.

The reason for all these is for one simple reason that time is on my hands, and it might not be yours but it doesn't mean that I should not be helping you simply because you are not asking or offering an reward in return.


It is getting very uncomfortable to offer help without asking for anything in return without looking really stupid- this continues to puzzle me- simply because if it is free, and if you feel suspicious. The best answer, "Adios, or Au Revoir.".

The only day I offer a seat to someone old- and she stared at me. And when I simply don't give a damn- everyone looks like they don't care. Poor old lady.

Atom

What is a good life? To some, it is a sense of normalcy and a sense of being part of a social organism. To other's it is the superseding of personal limits and attain a level of success deemed acceptable by the larger crowd. Can we achieve a level of satisfaction independent of the opinions of other's? This means that success is what we called, rather than what other's say we are or dictate what we are.

To many, a good life is one which surrounds what other's want of us. Sometimes, we do it without even realizing it. We open the papers, we watched the television programs and observed the glossy ads.  At other times, we received praises, awards and accolades from other's and we know that we are getting there.

But can we have a good life independent of these external stimulus? This means that the person whom works hard but does not appear on any "Best" award receives a certain amount of satisfaction from having done a job well done.

Ultimately, why does the first supersedes the second- which means that the  persons with all the attention and the most markers of success enjoy a good life which no others enjoy. Leaving out external social, political and economic environment, does that mean that when " I say you are good", it means that you have received affirmation and you should feel good about yourself. This means that why do we feel good from listening praises from our local community then say global or outside community. Is there a difference. [ leaving out hard analysis of politics, economics and social issues aside]

In the second, the satisfaction- independent of any material analysis of external environment- is simply which comes from actually attaining a certain amount of life goals and milestones which we personally deemed as achievements in our right. This could be simply getting what we did yesterday wrong, right today- how then does it differ from saying, someone at your back watching your every move and praising your every improvement.

And of course, it is commonly thought that the first are suppose to enjoy more "economic" rewards, since the grapevine is where the words get spread around. Let's say we enjoy the satisfaction of gaining approval of other's and how is it that these rewards allow us to have a good life.

The middle class sobriety which we see on the bus, print and media ads which a lot of aspring young graduates wants to attain. Yes, we look like them and apparently, everyone really like us- but how does it satisfies us.

Since, the apparent reward is that such attainment breeds a sense of success by which get inspires interest in prospective clients and employers- but that is reaffirming the identity of other's but not ourselves. The reality is that, the middle class white collar worker, struggles to buy a car, pay his housing and keep his 1.4 children happy in Singapore without the help of a duo income. All these at the same time of blasting condominium ads, sleek car ads, alluring luxury good ads and also a sense of envy which requires us to keep our sobriety and our Joneses happy.

This means that the good life is part of the larger social organism which seems forever like a broken radio which keeps on playing the same song but never seems to find the end and continuation of another new song. This is a normalcy and this is what keeping with Joneses means.

But if keeping the appearances is ever the important, what happens when we are chasing a moving goalpost- other people's goalpost and not our's. The pretty wife, the trophy car. the clean children and the minimalist house suddenly seems like a threadmill, forever running and moving but the scenery never changes.

I am not going to blast you with any more atomization and materialistic bullshit that you so aware of but sometimes I wonder, the vacant, empty eyes. Who are we and what are we made of?






 

In God, we trust.

What makes Hitler kills so many Jews in the name Nazism- Power. But what gives him power over millions and makes other's be compelled by his words and how does the Germans followed his words and orders without remorse nor humanity. If Obama were to start a genocide- why could he not compelled his people to kill in the name of the strongest nation in the world. He is powerful- given- relative to the rest of the nations, he has lot's administrative power-given- and he also has the media to influence people to do likewise- and why does not be able to move the people to do likewise. Simply because we have alternatives and doubts.

People who do not have doubts nor alternatives have the ability to will itself to commit heinous crimes in the name of a higher cause. The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusade and all other forms of ideology which form a tautological ecological fallacy in the consciousness in the minds of these people. Let us leave the existence of God aside in this particular instance:

In God's will, I command you to ______. And once then given the idea of an other-worldly mandate, it then see itself as the vessel of which carries the order of something higher. Suddenly God's mind is is his mind. This means that I am carrying God's work and not my work hence I have every right to command you. This is so Five Hundred years ago. Fast Forward to 20th century, where Hitler is able to compel millions to his bidding without the idea of an "higher" being.

I really doubt that it is simply just due to propaganda and Gestapo, Grobbels says: "when you repeat the lie long enough, it becomes the truth." This means that there is a split between the higher cause and the person carrying out this command. All then does anyone reconcile the fact that watching your neighbor slaughtered and pretending that it is really the nation's cause and prolonging the Teutonic blood- or really Aryan blood for that matter.

There must be re-ordering of the cause and effect in the mind's of these people that ensure that guilt, shame and kinship is no longer primal instincts to prevent the genocide from happening. The Jews are often blamed for being rich misers and sucking the blood out of the working and middle class Germans. They are painted in caricature as fat cats which skinned alive and with no shred of humanity but with wealth in their minds. But suddenly what if your neighbor is the same person which gave you butter and oil when you most need it.

Fear is often the easy by-word to overcome guilt, shame and kindred spirit but it is more than that. Fear does not systematically install hatred and revenge. It is the systematic draining of all emotions from these acts as nothing more than part and parcel which replaces humanity with a kind of systematic hatred with carthasis coming from the release of it- a schoolyard laughing at the loser at the playground. This means that all emotions are brought down to a level of cruelty justified only by the politically charged atmosphere which can only ameliorated by childhood. This means that you can do anything you want, but just don't get caught. In fact, getting caught is like a thrill. Either you kill off the loser or you let it go- it is just fun. Letting go means, he can come back again and provide a sense of cheap thrill. And so the cartoonish Jews come into play. We can kill you simply because you are a cartoon character, a Charlie Brown if you like.

In the modern context, of course, killing another person simply because of taxonomy is wrong. But what is not wrong, is having the ability to dictate the actions of other's which gives a thrill similar to the above. This means that if I can compel another to do our bidding- of what illegal action is there in doing so. This means that I did nothing, it's free will, my dear boy. Unfortunately this is not free will. There is a false choice put up by other's in the name of schoolyard fun and it is fantastic social control tool-simply because it is "harmless".

This means that like the Nazi's, I am simply creating a ideal society built upon ideals dictated by an order and this can done by simply making sure the school playground is big enough for everyone to play. The loser can play the slide for all I care, just make sure that he knows he is the loser- and everyone have the right to laugh at him so long as you do not touch him. Everyone have fun, and everyone wins. We have regress to the point of schoolboys in the name of social control simply because anyone who escapes the gaze, will face the will of those around of him/her.

This panopticon in this case, is a self regulating mechanism built upon by the stick of prison guards of the prison. Have all the fun you want, but make sure that you observe the rules. So where does this fudge with the causal order. We did wrong- we feel guilty; becomes we did something wrong, we are following orders. Viola. Perfect and Magnifique. The prison guards can sit and watch each other destroy themselves. Schoolboys are easy to handle.

There isn't a need for alternatives simply  because there is peace. And since peace is a given condition of the continuation of all community, regardless of the personality of the people- we can do whatever we want and still nothing will happen and in fact, we might thrive, so long as we don't rouse the guards.

It took an outsider, the Americans to put the Germans back in it's place and revert them back to a level of collective guilt. But it would take a schoolboy a lifetime to realize the regression of its emotional state.