Desire

Why do women conspicuously endeavour to make men fall in love with them and strive to get men to give women their hearts if all they do with our hearts is just break them into pieces afterward? Perhaps it is the hope of all men to be in love with someone who’s also in love with them even for a moment. Perhaps, it is this hope that drives men to subsist. I suppose I just answered my first question. It must be a biological imperative that women make men chase them even if men’s love is unrequited. The survival of the male masses are dependent on this hope. Is that what a midlife crisis is? Is a midlife crisis the point in time a man realizes that love is simply not in his cards?

It seems so frivolous to enjoy something without someone else with whom to share the experience. How do you know you’re in love? If all else seems frivolous without that person. Therefore I suppose the real definition of confidence is living a life in which the enjoyment of life is possible alone. It seems to be this very trait to which women are most attracted. Their actions are therefore hypocritical. On the one hand, they are drawn to men who do not need their love but on the other, are seemingly indifferent toward men who are in love with them.

I suppose the most fundamental question is: how can a man enjoy live regardless of other people? The answer, I believe, is personal achievement. At the end of the day, it’s not man versus man. It’s man versus himself. Man can find confidence in pushing his own limits.

 

Advertisements

Diversity

When peoples of different race, culture, language or customs are brought together into the same geographic region and the conditions are created for intermixing, the ultimate result is naturally a blending of those ethnic groups. The identity and uniqueness of those original cultural groups becomes eroded over time with each passing generation and is progressively replaced by an overwhelming mono-culture. Analogously, if a can of black paint is mixed with a can of white paint in the same container, it forms one entirely new colour. The resulting grey paint doesn’t differ from any other colour because there is no other colour. There is only one colour left. One thing. One entity. If racial diversity is a good thing, as some of our leaders profess it to be, then why bring people of different races together in the same region when the ensuing race-mixing would only bring about less diversity, not more?

Democracy

In order for democracy to function properly, one of its requirements is that the electorate have sufficient knowledge of all candidates running for any given political office. So what percentage of the modern public goes out of their way to research all competing candidates instead of just passively swallowing the political propaganda in the news and in the universities in small increments over time? Not enough.

It stands to reason that if suffrage is a vital human right, it follows that there should be a mandate that the citizen have a healthy knowledge of each candidate. Not only should the citizen know that, but he should have a solid understanding of economics, history, and the political process. What percentage of the public is defined by these attributes?

 

 

Free Will… again

The physical non-living world around us is governed by the laws of nature. Water, due to the force of gravity, will move from a point of higher elevation to a point of lower elevation if it is permitted, but what if humans come along and erect a dam or divert the flow of water to go somewhere else? When we humans do something to our environment, is that action a complex manifestation of the physical and chemical laws of nature or are we separated from the non-living world in the sense that we choose to take a specific course of action through our own volition and free will? Does free will only exist for humans?

The London Terror Attack

Today, we read in the news that four people have been killed in London, England by a middle-eastern assailant, three of whom were killed by a vehicle and the fourth, a policeman, stabbed to death. In the recent articles written about the event, it is frequently mentioned that “ISIS claimed responsibility for this attack on its propaganda platform, Amaq News Agency.”

Supporting article here: Isil claims responsibility

However, there is one concerning detail about this: the authenticity of the amaq news agency is extremely difficult to verify.

Upon researching “amaq news agency” through google, one of the top search results is a link to the following page: 5 Things to Know about Amaq News Agency , which basically explains that members of the public cannot download nor access the amaq news agency app.

So in other words: the media is claiming that ISIS is responsible for the London terrorist attack based on a message, which we cannot verify, that was posted on a terrorist organization’s android app, which we cannot download, an app that is only available to members of ISIS through invite only and somehow the media are the only people who have unrestricted access to it. That’s too convenient.

What is the media hiding? This would suggest in fact that there is no amaq news agency. Which, in turn, would suggest that ISIS claiming responsibility for the attacks in London never really happened. This would also question the validity of other attacks for which ISIS has reportedly taken responsibility. This would also draw into question the true culpability of ISIS in general. Does ISIS even exist? What is really going on here?