The conquering force

An important note on the differences among the institutions that we call The Government, The Military Force, The Police Force that stem from their ancient origins. Many of us are not aware that once upon a time, thousands of years ago, they existed as a single body, the conquering force. One could study the ancient Europe, Americas, China or Japan and will find the same thing. One group of powerful individuals, a tribe, or a family or a clan would invade and occupy another group of individuals and their land. But the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese began to wonder how to make their conquering forces and the entire system more efficient.

To make a long story short they decided that it’s best to leave some of the forces at home to maintain stability and serve as a fresh backup (police) and use the rest to invade and occupy new lands and establish their presence there (military) and to govern it all via the central command (the government).

The most resilient residents of any new lands would be rounded up and killed and their property and any recorded ideological constructs (books, libraries, statues, religious monuments, etc.) destroyed. The occupants of the new lands would be treated as slaves and would perform any duties necessary to ensure the royals can maintain their affluent lifestyles.

The British refined this process even further, primarily in order to make their system of governance even more efficient and productive. They civilized the war. They made massacring and violence appear logical and necessary. The terms such as class, different levels of aristocracy, different types of clothes, and last names or surnames had been introduced in order to adapt the conquered people to their place in society. Needless to say many, other nations did the same thing. Something that many British historians and British government members have trouble talking about and would like to believe that the monarchy’s severe laws and unfair treatment of working class citizens stemmed from their intention to maintain the overall well being of the state.

If that is not the greatest piece of long term planning and long term project management I don’t know what is. Creating a peaceful, submissive working class, worldwide, that would serve their children and their children’s children. Ad infinitum.

People are realizing what is happening and their realization which leads to action is forcing the government to erase the difference that separated it the from the police force and the difference that separated the police force from the military force. The power elite is having trouble solving the following problem: the more the three institutions untie the more apparent it becomes that the world is run by the power elite that is the conquering force itself and that it cannot care about ‘people’ for its actions reveal that it sees them as its property. Not as a part of its own being. Therefore, the history suggests that it has never viewed the conquered individuals as a part of itself. We were not aware of the instinct, fear, ego and psyche. But now we are, and it is our duty to admit that we can and therefore must control our intellect. It is not an easy thing to do, but we have to do it if we are to continue to exist on this planet.

It is very sad and therefore very hard to admit that all of our greatest achievements had been funded by endless masses of fellow human beings. The working class people. Poor, sad, sick, troubled children, women and men have been suffering for decades, unnecessarily, century after century, without acknowledgment, without respect. We have to admit that this is still happening and that it must end.

To Facebook and related companies, privacy and user disclaimer

Here is the philosophical root of the problem that we as human beings are facing and that so many wealthy individuals cannot begin to grasp because they have not really tried to live outside the system that provides them with financial security, that is they have not tried to relate to the environment. The root problem that is so clearly suggested in every privacy and user policy distributed by every single company precisely because they feel the need to maintain that system:
PRIVATIZATION OF ANYTHING (LAND, ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE) OR IN OTHER WORDS ‘WEALTH ACQUISITION’ IS NOT LEGAL BECAUSE IT REQUIRES ONE TO CREATE GOVERNMENTS, ARMIES AND POLICE WHICH THEN HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM THAT ENABLES THE WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS TO CONTINUE TO ACQUIRE AND LABEL LANDS, ENVIRONMENTS AND PEOPLE AS ‘THEIR OWN’ WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT A.) THOSE LANDS, ENVIRONMENTS AND PEOPLE HAVE NO NATURAL DESIRE OF THEIR OWN TO BELONG TO ANY ONE INSTITUTION OR ANY ONE PERSON AND B.) THAT AS A RESULT OF THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT EXPRESS ANY SUCH DESIRES OF THEIR OWN THE PROCESS OF PRIVATIZATION IS NOT NATURAL, THEREFORE, AND THIS IS VERY OBVIOUS, ESPECIALLY TO SCIENTISTS, IT IS DOES NOT NOTHING FOR THE LANDS, ENVIRONMENTS OR PEOPLE WHOM IT CONTROLS. THEREFORE THE NATURAL LAW THAT IS SO OBVIOUS AND THAT HAS BEEN EXISTING LONGER THAN ANY HUMAN MADE LAW IS MORE BENEFICIAL BECAUSE IT TAKES CARE OF EVERY ONE AND EVERY THING BY DEFAULT. THEREFORE IT RENDERS THE ‘HUMAN MADE’ AND ‘HUMAN ENFORCED’ LAW ILLEGAL. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DESIGNED A WORLD IN WHICH THE FEW WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS CAN IGNORE BILLIONS WHO ARE SUFFERING IS AN ENDLESS TRAGEDY THAT SHOULD HAUNT YOU LIKE AN ENDLESS NIGHTMARE.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR. WE ARE FIGHTING FOR WHAT WE KNOW WE ARE. THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT HAS TO OCCUPY LANDS, ENVIRONMENTS AND PEOPLE AND THEN RAPE THEM. IT IS WHY IT CANNOT OFFER THE SOLUTION WE NEED. IT IS WHY IT MUST END BEFORE IT DESTROYS US. AS LONG AS ANY ONE PERSON OR INSTITUTION, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS, CONTINUES TO MAKE POLICES WHICH ENFORCE CURRENT UNNATURAL LAWS WHICH SUPPORT PRIVATIZATION OF THE WORLD AND NATURE THEY OR IT ARE OPPRESSING PEOPLE AND PREVENTING THEM FROM SHARING THE WORLD.

IS THIS REALLY SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. IT IS TIME TO DESIGN A NEW LEGAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT WILL UNTIE US HUMANS WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

THE KEY IDEA TO UNDERSTAND AND THEN DEBUNK IS THIS, OUR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE IS NOT DETERMINED BY THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE CAN MANIPULATE THE DIGITAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT IN ORDER TO CONTROL, DESTROY AND REPLACE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

THE WORLD AND ITS DRIVING IDEOLOGY HAVE TO CHANGE. THE DRIVING IDEOLOGY BEHIND EVERY KEY SYSTEM (EDUCATION, GOVERNANCE, COMMUNICATION, ECONOMY) HAS TO CHANGE. THE TRUE MARK OF TODAY’S INTELLIGENCE HAS TO BE EXPRESSED AS ‘THE NEED TO OBSERVE THE NATURE AND DISCOVER HOW TO INTEGRATE OURSELVES INTO IT AND RELATE TO OTHER BEINGS AND INTEGRATE OURSELVES INTO THEIR LIVES BY INCREASING OUR SENSE OF EMPATHY FOR OURSELVES, OTHER PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT’. WE MUST NOT CONTINUE TO CREATE POLICES WHICH PREVENT SUCH OBSERVATIONS AND ATTEMPTS. WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO END SUCH POLICIES.

THEREFORE, DEAR FACEBOOK AND ALL OTHER INSTITUTIONS, BUSINESSES AND CORPORATIONS , IF YOU REALLY WANT TO CHANGE THE WORLD, I URGE YOU TO DO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO DESIGN POLICIES THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO EXPRESS ANY VIEWS THEY MIGHT HAVE, WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION THAT MIGHT ATTEMPT DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE VIEWS SHOULD BE, AND TO REPORT ANYTHING THEY SEE, EVEN IF IT CONTRADICTS THEIR LOCAL LAWS OR INTERNATIONAL LAWS BECAUSE THOSE LAWS ARE DESIGNED BY THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE ABOUT ALL PEOPLE AND ENVIRONMENTS. THEY CARE ONLY ABOUT WHAT THEY ACQUIRE AND DEEM TO BE THEIR ‘PERSONAL PROPERTY’. THEREFORE THOSE LAWS ARE NOT TRUTHFUL AND NOT TRUE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT INCLUDE ALL BEINGS AND ALL ENVIRONMENTS.

I HAVE NO DESIRE TO BE ANYONE’S PERSONAL PROPERTY NOR DO I DESIRE TO ACQUIRE LANDS, ENVIRONMENTS AND PEOPLE AND DEFINE THE PROCESS DURING WHICH I HAVE ACQUIRED THEM AS A ‘SUCCESSFUL CAREER’. IF YOU FEEL THAT ALL BEINGS AND ENVIRONMENTS SHOULD NOT BE OPPRESSED THEN YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT ANY ONE OR ANY THING EXCEPT YOUR OWN PROFITS AND YOUR OWN IMAGE THEN AGAIN YOU WILL KNOW WHAT DO, AND WE WILL KNOW WHAT TO THINK OF YOUR ACTIONS.

Facebook rules and opression

I would like to comment on the following Statement of Rights and Responsibilities rule by The Facebook.

The rule is

5. Protecting Other People’s Rights

1. You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law.

So do not say anything that opposes the law even if ‘the law’ and the institutions which ‘enforce it’ violate your rights to live a free life. Furthermore, if we are not allowed to question the law by contradicting it how is the process of making that law free and democratic.

Dear Facebook, how about this revolutionary suggestion. A new clause that goes something like this:

If you see any actions performed by any individual, group of individuals, or institutions, private or public, including your local government, that may violate your or any other individual’s rights to live a free life and express any opinions then please feel free to use the Facebook to communicate how such an individual, group of individuals, or institutions, private or public, including your local government are attempting to limit your ability to exist as a free citizen of the world who is entitled to any and all natural resources and environments offered by the world. Furthermore, please use the Facebook to demonstrate how and why any individuals, companies, corporations, institutions and governments acquire land and property in order to further increase their ability do design and implement laws which will limit your ability to prosper as a human being by limiting your right to share and enjoy the world and its resources and environments which are your given right but which have been denied by individuals, group of individuals, or institutions, private or public, including your local government that are privatizing the planet and the solar system.

Activism and its consequences are fragmenting our reality precisely because they birthing new frontiers of perception, understanding and being

Today, the digital realm (my phrase for anything digital shared over a network) is loaded with the consequences of our actions, making ignorance an impossibility, and empathy a new currency. Its vibrations extending into our shared reality and forcing us to reshape our perceptions and our reality. Our existence, or our ‘reality’ if you wish, is vibrating with an unperceived tension whose frequency is suggesting the farthest consequences of activism, metaphorically speaking of course, lol.

As I watch Ms. Martin’s interview with Mr. Ventura I begin to realize how significant their statements are, and how the realizations expressed therein, and our collective actions, those of us who believe in truth and in the need for a new world, are fragmenting our reality. It is because we want to learn so much and know so much that we are creating a new state of existence, but only for ourselves. By ‘ourselves’ I mean our generation. Our constant search for truth, the unending learning process, perpetual stimulation of our senses via the shared digital realm are giving birth to a new state of mind. The new state of mind is beautiful but at the same time so powerful that it could be perceived as dangerous because it will create a change that I think will unite the world, fragment the world, or destroy the world.

The beauty of the mind that questions everything, like Ms. Martin does in the interview, like so many of us who grew up in the digital realm do, is that we are trying to create a better world for everyone. But, our new state of mind, actually, as I write this I am beginning to realize that perhaps it’s more than just a state of mind, perhaps it’s our new state of being. Yes, our new state of being is something that the previous generation will not be able to approach in any way. Perhaps it is something that we cannot share with them, in any way.

Our post-post technological and post-post economic realization, as I call it, is what is causing us to reshape our lives. We are giving a new shape to our lives. It’s a shape that those who were born before us cannot begin to comprehend. I think their mind is lacking a dimension of perception that we have acquired because of our interaction with other human beings through the digital realm, and because of our interaction with the digital realm. The digital realm has affected the neural design and the neural connections within our brains to the extent that nobody thought possible. It has increased our sense of empathy. Not in every individual who uses a computer, but in some, in many. It’s a new and complicated topic.

Despite our efforts to create a better world and express the ultimate truth of the moment, our every thought and our every action is creating a state of being that is by default going to separate us from the old school of thought. Now more than ever because every thought and every realization and every truth are shared in the digital realm. Those who wish to share in this experience will grow but those who are not interested in it will be unable to connect with the truth of our shared moments and their importance, to us, and to them, to all of us.

To me, this is in some ways sad. It is our intention to connect with all human beings yet we cannot do so. It is our intention to increase our collective level of empathy yet we cannot do so. Our purpose is to connect and learn, their purpose is to acquire wealth and create security, precisely because they do not know how to connect, hence they cannot trust.

The nature of the connections we are sharing through the digital realm is something they cannot begin to comprehend because it has not been with them since their childhood. The previous generation cannot assign the same level of importance to other beings because they have not been able to share so much, so quickly, almost instantly, with so many different people, all their lives, like we have. To them, the digital construct of ‘the other individual’, as represented in the cyberspace, will never mean as much as it does to us.

I think it is ‘the digital construct’, among other things, that is helping us develop a new dimension of empathy within us. Thus, adding to our overall sense of empathy. Thus, forcing us to look for new solutions. Yes, post-post technological, post-post economic solutions because we are so well connected to the rest of the world that we have come to witness the true consequences of our wealth.

It was easy for the previous generations when they did not have to deal with the consequences of their business decisions. It was easy when the corporations could go to foreign countries and rape their lands and extract their resources and the people of those countries had no voice, had no digital presence.

Only those who refuse to use the new technologies to open their minds can afford to enjoy the fruit of their ignorance. The rest of us, we want to connect with our fellow human beings, but, in the process we are alienating the old fashioned thinkers who have not been taught how to perceive the digital realm’s more humanistic applications.

They will continue to use the digital realm in order to control us, turn us against one another, and ultimately to try to conceal their intentions and hide any actions performed in what they deem to be foreign lands. All this signifies the totality of their actions (to hide the truth) and their belief that it is possible to keeps one’s action covert signifies their total misunderstanding of the redefined human condition, that there are no foreign countries and no foreigners anymore, only fellow human beings.

Explaining the importance of understanding why we don’t understand something is how we can cure ignorance

People fail to observe that when they don’t understand something they use general words that cannot describe the idea, object or person they are observing. Furthermore, they fail to observe that those words do not describe their feelings about what they are observing.

For example, when people do not understand something they describe it as strange, unusual, different, weird, new, bizarre, ridiculous, unexpected, or they use many other words without any particular meaning.

The fact that their words do not offer a specific description of the observation or of their feelings about the observation suggests that the individual who is using them is not capable of assigning a specific meaning to what they are observing or to the feelings they are experiencing.  They are not able to do so because they do not realize that they need to compare it to their mind and its intellectual habits and to their body and its physical habits and to their thinking patterns created by the two sets of habits and then try to make an educated guess about how and why their sets of habits make them think and feel whatever it is they think and feel  about the event.

In other words, they need to determine what it is about them and their thinking and their behavior that causes them to perceive and describe the idea, object or person as something unusual.

The problem is complicated because they don’t know that they need to compare it to their patterns of thinking and behaving and they don’t know how to do it. Their inability to do so perpetuates ignorance because they cannot wonder ‘why have I selected this non descriptive word’, thus a relationship between them and the idea, object or person cannot begin to form. It is dismissed as an invalid event because it does not fall within their pattern of thinking and behaving.  

 

 

 

                      

How much is enough, infinity

The question is how much money does one need?

The problem is not that the answer provided would suggests a large number. Millions, billions.

No matter how large a number it might be, we could redesign the world to accommodate it.

We could design a world in which everyone could be rich.

The problem is that the answer to the question how much money does one need is infinity. No limit. Infinite greed.
That is why we cannot solve our problems.

Using wealth to build emotional barriers

I have come to an incredible conclusion. The wealthy have to use their wealth to isolate themselves, psychologically and emotionally and physically, from the rest of the world in order to maintain some kind of sanity. If they were to stop using their wealth to maintain the barriers between themselves and those rendered poor by the need to perpetuate wealth, their conscious realization of the extent of their greed would annihilate their conscious and subconscious thoughts in an instant. Their realization of the perverseness and pointlessness of the need to acquire wealth in order to be able to acquire more wealth would destroy their sanity.

Therefore they have to use their wealth to create a barrier that prevents them from witnessing the consequences of their own actions. I was not able to understand how intelligent individuals like Bill Gates could not see that by perpetuating the need to acquire wealth they are perpetuating poverty, struggle, and misery.

They are concerned with running their businesses and using their charities to help the people whose lives they destroy. They are completely oblivious to the fact that their need to create wealth is an addiction and that it is destroying people’s lives. By ignoring the addiction and focusing on running businesses they give themselves an opportunity to redeem themselves via charity and donations thus never having to deal with the addiction.

I am thinking how important it is to explain this process to them and how difficult it is to do that.
What a messed up psyche.

Transforming the world

The ones perpetuating the current socio economic system are the ones who are benefiting from it hence they don’t feel any need to participate in its change. Their lack of desire to change is created by a genuine form of ignorance created by a stable and wealthy lifestyle.

Nothing will happen until we organize to the point where our ideologies turn into physical actions and lifestyles that can prevent the existing ideologies, structures and institutions from creating and supplying products and services that continue to increase their power by increasing the amount of the invisible assets (stock, digital data, digital landscape, etc.) they own.

We need a simple, step by step guide that would help every single person in the world learn how to do the most important things they have to do in their everyday lives (working in their jobs, cooking, cleaning, exercising, building, gardening, repairing their car, and so on) in a new way. In a way that would reduce the need to purchase things and use money. I think the key to creating the systems proposed by Jacques Fresco and Peter Joseph is to develop a system that would use money to reduce the need to create more money thus leading to its extinction. We cannot make the current system disappear. We must make a plan for dismantling it. And then we must deploy that plan, world wide, before it’s too late, before the internet is no longer free, and I am very convinced that the internet will not remain as free as it is now, because it is the ultimate threat. The threat whose very nature is forcing the gate keepers to alter it in order to limit its potential to create change. Unfortunately, it’s nature is such that it dictates censorship.

Instead of investing money into stock and invisible assets that create more money and more invisible assets, we have to invest it into permanent physical and non physical structures that will reduce banks’ and corporations’ ability to create more money and invisible assets. This process has to start on a personal level.

I am writing an extremely long and detailed but at the same time an extremely simple guide that I hope will help us perform a large number of our daily actions in ways that will prevent us from having to use money to buy expendable products. Put it this way. Imagine if we could develop a guide that would teach us how to start buying not what we need, not the expandable stuff, but the tools and materials and books that would enable us to create and maintain our own things. I think that after a generation or two we would be able to function as an independent system and would not have to purchase anything. It contains practical instructions. Step by step actions. No propaganda. No theory. No ideology. It’s as simple as how to change your oil filter.

It will take a long time to create the guide, it is without an end as once it’s on line, for free of course, people will be able to add to it. I hope that by translating it into as many languages as possible and distributing it to every factory, every company (not to managers, directors and ceos, but to low wage workers), every school, every mine, every farm, and so on, every individual in every suburb, we will begin to create a global society that will begin to move away from the monetary system. Thus rendering money, economy, wealth, stocks, land ownership less and less important. I am talking about baby steps.

Our shared reality is created through actions performed by individual beings and it is only by changing one individual at a time that we can begin to change our reality.

The modern male and his relationship with himself and the world

This article is a realization. A personal thought. An article I have written for a blog. I am posting it here and elsewhere because I hope it will help men get in touch with themselves.

Men, most men, I am not making a general statement, I really mean it, most men, if not all men, never grow up. They never mature. Most men never mature because they never get in touch with their inner selves. They never get in touch with their inner selves because their fathers and mothers do not teach them what it means to be a male or more specifically they do not teach them how to distinguish between masculinity and being a male. Their parents cannot teach them because their parents never taught them. Ad infinitum.

Most parents do not teach their male offspring that being a male is something they are and not something they need to become. I think men are not taught how to perceive and therefore cannot begin to distinguish between BEING A MALE and FEELING THE NEED TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE A MALE. And it is because the realization that they are two different things does exist within their mind that they continue to feel the need to prove and preserve their masculinity.

Men do not understand that being a male and masculinity are two different things because they have not been taught that masculinity cannot be reduced or removed. Men are not taught and then assured that being a male is a state that cannot be altered. Instead, men are encouraged to continue to reaffirm their masculinity.
The need to continue to perpetuate MASCULINITY becomes a source of conflict because it requires men to dedicate significant amounts of time and resources to the task. Thus their dedication to preserving their masculinity means they can dedicate less time to other relationships with themselves, other men, the world, and women of course. This very process, the need to reaffirm masculinity, creates a series of conflicts. Naturally, conflicts between men and other men, conflicts between men and women, and conflicts between men and the world.

I think that men’s failure to realize that masculinity cannot be removed is one of the main reasons why men want power, control, money, weapons, toys, drugs, and multiple women. This is a sweeping generalization. Men’s desires are influenced by many different things. Men, like women, are complicated. I understand that. However, I still think that men’s complete unawareness of the difference between being a male and masculinity and the position of the ego in relation to the other two is the perpetual and defining feature or perhaps source of their male drives. The male drives that create the male character.

Men have to prove their masculinity in every little thing. When they get home it has to be acknowledged that the man is home, when they are camping they have to drink and fire up the barbeque, when they are with their children they cannot let go and make a fool of themselves or cry or really and truly level with their children, when they in a group, when they are driving, they have to be in charge of every situation. The problem is that men cannot realize that their desire to be in charge of every situation simply because it feels natural to be in charge, because they misunderstand their drive, cannot be used to justify the desire to be in charge. This creates conflicts because men fail to realize that no situation really and truly requires a male approach.
A set of circumstances, no matter how complex or how simple, cannot dictate the gender of the individual that needs to deal with that set of circumstances. The belief that a masculine approach is required is an imaginary concept. No tree in the world can demand to be cut by a male. No car can demand to be repaired by a male. Men have been performing those actions because of our primitive understanding of ourselves. An understanding that has to change.

The ego and the need to reinforce masculinity kick in and prevent men from being true human beings they are. And this affects our relationships with women. We cannot be ourselves. We have to be masculine. Many men cannot talk or kiss or make love, or experience true emotions. They have to be in control, they have to be in charge, they have to be on top. They believe they always have to do something to somebody because they have not been assured, during the critical stages of their lives, that not doing something to somebody and just experiencing the feelings of the situation would not reduce their masculinity. Thus, they, we, cannot truly let go. Or it is very hard for men to allow themselves to be loved and to be vulnerable.

It is because men are so focused on the need to preserve the masculine dimension of their character that their relationships with women are so difficult to maintain. Furthermore, women expect this kind of behaviour because it has been taking place for thousands of years. As a result women have to fight for attention and for love and it is why they believe that they need to be the main thing in their man’s life. Unless women know they are the main thing they know the man is going to go on and do his male stuff. Priorities.

He is going to do whatever he can, without thinking about it, to maintain his masculinity. Work on a car, cut trees, whatever. The problem is that they are learned behaviours. They are habitual behaviours. They are habits. But they can be changed. They are not natural. But they seem natural. They are not necessary but they seem necessary, because men have no assurance that their maleness will not vanish without a trace if they stop doing them.

Women are right when they demand men’s full attention because most men do behave that way.
To complicate things further, women have to talk and women love to talk. They have to talk and they love to talk because they feel more. They feel more because their feelings are closer to the surface. Their feelings are closer to the surface because they are more in touch with their inner selves. They more in touch with their inner self because of their physiological and psychological design. Childbearing requirements and so on.

It is because women are so in touch with themselves that for women sexuality is beyond physical. In other words women want to constant communication, ongoing feelings of care, sharing and consideration. Stimulation of a wide range of feelings and areas of the body and the mind. It is what is meant by psychologists and sexologists who suggests that women need as much as a day or two of foreplay. It is not foreplay. It is perceived that way by men. Especially by the male psychologists of the 40s, 50s and 60s. Women need an ongoing flow of the sensual feelings. It is why women never stop asking questions and never stop feeling the need to grow closer and closer and closer. But when it does not happen women have to fight for it and ask for it, which is most of the time. It is most of the time because men are not in touch with themselves (most of the time)and need to keep affirming their masculinity. In other words men are not taught how to share their feelings, how to care, how to explore their emotions and imagination, and how to share their findings with other men, women and the world, because it would jeopardize their ability to reinforce their masculinity. Something that women do by default.
Therefore, women have to keep asking for attention (meaning care, communication, dedication) and men keep refusing to give it because they fear they will have less time to do their male stuff, less time to reinforce their masculinity. Thus this kind of relationship helps perpetuate the male female conflict. It is important to note that a significant number of the above mentioned processes are perceived as habitual behaviours, instincts, normal desires and are therefore subconscious and internalized.

A significant new problem has occurred because of the above mentioned misunderstandings. Men misunderstand the term feminism. Women do not want to be more like men. What an incredible misunderstanding. A typical male reaction designed to reinforce masculinity, because it places no demands on men to question the need to reinforce masculinity. Continue along, like nothing is happening.

Women want men to show more respect for their femininity by acknowledging that it is important, furthermore, and more importantly, women want men to realize that acknowledging that femininity is important is not going to affect their masculinity and is not an attempt to sabotage their masculinity. Women want men to recognize that femininity is as important as masculinity and that discussing it and accepting it and allowing it to influence men’s priorities would not reduce their masculinity. And we need to accept this, because, after all, nothing can reduce our masculinity.

Reimagining, redefining and reinventing creativity and self expression in order to redesign the environment, Jacques Fresco’s The Venus Project

Physical structures (buildings and cities, even clothes) that house our bodies are not as important as our bodies, because our bodies contain our minds, and our minds can redesign any environment or any thing. Therefore our environments (buildings, cities, even clothes) should be changing in order to in order to improve our bodies’ and therefore our minds’ functions.

I think the next logical thought should be: the mind should be taught how to imagine, design and build the most useful environment for the body. Unfortunately, this is not happening. It is not happening because we are not taught how to permit ourselves to be efficient thinkers and therefore we are not able to perceive the need to imagine more efficient and useful environments.

A large number of concerns expressed by international readers and viewers who are familiar with The Venus Project by Jacque Fresco (please google it as I do not include links on this page ) addresses the ideologies that would have to be put in place in order to turn Mr. Fresco’s designs into physical structures.
One of the main arguments is that the new environment would resemble a dictatorship. I think this argument demonstrates the public’s lack of understanding of the basic laws of nature (as well as the basic laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology).

Mr. Fresco keeps stressing that we must stop making irrational decisions. He suggests that most of our current decisions are influenced by the ego, fears, local customs, border protection policies, foreign relations polices, and so on, and that they are not the most efficient decisions our civilization can make. Such decisions are designed to keep ‘our’ resources within ‘our group’ or ‘our community’ or ‘our state’ or ‘our nation’. The imagined need to protect ‘ourselves’ and ‘our resources’ is forcing us to design and maintain incredibly inefficient systems and perform incredibly inefficient actions.

Mr. Fresco suggests that human beings need to learn more about scientific thinking, scientific methods and scientific modes of communication. He suggests that numbers, formulas, and specific scientific designs would reduce our ability to misinterpret information. An improved understanding of information would force us to change the fundamental structure of the langue. This in turn would improve how we communicate. Our ability to trust one another would increase which would improve our relations which would improve how we design our world and how we use our resources.

We have to accept that we need to learn how to remove any irrational fears and anxieties from our thoughts and from our behaviors. Introducing scientific observations, logic, and calculations into everyday thinking would enable us to make rational decisions. But more importantly, I think, it would reduce so many of our unnecessary behaviors and habits to very simple sets of actions. I think this is what scares so many people. Our lives are driven by irrational fears caused by limited perceptions. Most of us observe the physical world that surrounds us but are unable to determine how or why it functions the way it does because we have not been equipped with the basic scientific knowledge. Therefore most of us cannot base our actions on our own interpretations of events, on our own knowledge, thus we believe we have to continue to repeat the patterns established by our parents, friends or different institutions.

I think that so many individuals fail to perceive the project’s potential to create the world in which we would have the time and space to practice our true creativity. Many readers and viewers panic when Mr. Fresco suggests that all the buildings within the new environment would be identical because at this particular point in time ‘this’ particular building design is the most efficient way to capture, store , and retrieve energy; preserve food; maintain appropriate environments for plants, etc. The same reaction occurs when he suggests that we should not be thinking about cars; what we need is an efficient mode of transportation. Many equate Mr. Fresco’s desire to universalize and simplify the environment to dictatorship. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the basic science knowledge that enables one to identify and imagine the most efficient shapes, systems and structures.

Many say ‘I want my own house, my own car, my own chair, my own whatever. I want to design it, I want to create it’. Many forget that Mr. Fresco’s goal is the ultimate form of freedom. An environment that would enable each one of us to focus on our internal selves and release our creative energies in the way that could transform the world. How we decorate our room or what we wear or what we drive may make us feel good and it may indicate what we like and it may be important to us now, in this particular environment. However, such activities fade into insignificance when we compare them to being able to realize and then record and communicate our deepest realizations, dreams, visions and creative ideas and allow them to influence other people and future generations.

It is precisely because our current environment and its associated lifestyle keep us so busy that we are unable to observe the extent to which our current notions of creativity and self expression are restricted by the defining features of that environment; restricted to it and nothing else beyond it.

Note. I think I will expand on this subject. The limits of our definitions of creativity. Beyond it are a number of other realms. Digital realms. Bio Chemical realms. How can we plug our consciousness into them and use them to expand our consciousness and our mind’s potential and increase our sense of empathy.