When I hear “cowardly terror attack” in the news

It’s not the first time I hear something like this, exploiting an incident for incitement and personal commentary. For a news speaker such language should be forbidden, but it shows how much they have become propaganda speakers for the establishment.
People allow themselves such transgression because THEY are cowards and are trying to distract from that, by rallying against their nemesis. Standards of proper conduct and professionality are thrown out the window when people think they can get away with it, because it’s popular and because peer pressure tries to stifle critique of that mainstream.
This shows how troubled our society is and how the demons we fight originate in us.

Cowardice is rooted in existential fears and its derivatives. Calling someone a coward who is deliberately giving up their life … well, as I said, that’s what cowards do who refuse to understand the real causes that drive people to such ultimate self-sacrifice, because then they would have to see their own responsibility and involvement, and that is inconvenient, and cowards fear personal inconvenience.
Speaking of a “cowardly terror attack” is barking from the cheap seats, self-importance from the safety of peer support. It is only a small step away from a news speaker saying “Those evil barbarian enemies of all that is good need to be eradicated”, and things have moved in that direction and still do. The example in the title is not the most extreme case of an ignorant inciteful mindset I have witnessed.

People with some spine don’t kick downwards, but punch or at least look upwards, towards the source of collective suffering, the influential war-mongering psychopaths. They are given power through the convenience of fear, through cowardice, through refusing to confront your inner demons and thus manifesting them in the world through your denial-fueled actions.

You either become a common rabble puppet of the age-old game of divide-and-conquer or you find some courage and hone your character. And if these words upset you or create antagonistic thoughts, then that’s where you need to start that work. And that involves the most scary thing: opening your heart. Because the heart is not just the source of true kindness, but also of courage. Mind without heart is nothing but fear. It makes you ascend in the ranks of those who further the suffering in the world.

Star Citizen – Operation Pitchfork to turn humans into Vanduul?

In the game Star Citizen, Operation Pitchfork is a fandom idea where at the end of the beta phase all kinds of people, not just the military, will invade the space of the war-minded aggressive Vanduul race as an act of retaliation and such. Thus the name: Basically a lynch mob of commoners armed with pitchforks.

And I suddenly realized while reading a news report from the galactic front…

Operation Pitchfork would mark the victory of the demons that drive the Vanduul by turning humans into their enemy; making them a tribe fully committed to being aggressors, fully expanding the war mind to civilians.
While I say that all the people should support good values like freedom and keep society healthy, the methods are very relevant. Among the most valuable functions of the military is their sacrifice of directly facing and dealing with the horrors that war inevitably brings with itself so that civilian life can remain that. Then military people will also have a healing sanctuary to return to and recover and remind them of what they fight for. The Vanduul is exactly what you get when you expand the ‘culture of war’ far into the civilian life.

Act on fear and fear you will serve.
Sometimes it is the coward who fights and the brave one who refrains.

Airspace violation cases bring NATO depravity to surface

When several parties fight against a common enemy, this should have a uniting influence, but as always, when you put someone to the test, you learn about their true character.

So the IS is fought by NATO and Russia. Russian fighter planes operate in Syria because of this. And then one accidentally violated the airspace of the neiboring Turkey and was shot down! Russia enacted economic sanctions against Turkey because of this, and rightfully so.
Because realize the implications: What a psychopathic trigger-happy warmongering government does Turkey have? They knew it was a Russian plane and they knew it was there as part of fighting the enemy of NATO and Russia, the IS. Turkey is in the NATO. They couldn’t have possibly been so insane as to believe that Russian plane might have intended to attack Turkey. You don’t react like that unless you want conflict. (And let’s not forget how NATO themselves treats their putting pressure on other countries through close military presence like a right they have. They are experts at offending.)

Recently there was another case of a Russian plane scratching that Turkish airspace, and again the NATO (not just Turkey) plays the outraged.

The motivations for all this are mostly known, NATO being an instrument of a Cold War mindset that never really ended, always keeping the separation intact and discarding good will from Russia (pretty much what USA did and does with Iran), but there are also some less commonly known non-secrets, and cases like these airspace violations might actually serve to fully dig up the ugly truth.

You see, while the IS is an enemy of NATO and Turkey is a NATO member, Turkey doesn’t really consider IS their enemy. They have quite an interest in its continued existence. (They’re not the only ‘Western ally’ with such an interest.) And this is what is being brought closer to the surface of public awareness with such incidents. And that can be considered healthy. It is ‘Teacher Discord’ at work.

These things reveal more and more the underlying nature of shifting allegiances of the West (the USA and its lackeys), determined by who serves the imperial agenda. In such a system, there are no friends or enemies based on values of decency. It is all profoundly egoistical; a game of sociopaths, of fear, cowardice, denial of responsibility and fanaticism.

About the comparison grievance of U.S. presidents and Hitler

Occasionally someone calls Obama a new Hitler or some such, and while I cannot speak for those people’s intentions and reasoning behind such claims, I’d like to cause you some discomfort by pointing out how this would actually make sense.

Keyword Obamacare. Social insurance. Apparently he cares about Americans (at least as the official story – he’s still a politician). People who still operate on the cold war propaganda condemn him as a “socialist”, which is tragically amusing, because he’s still so far away from that. But let’s just acknowledge the type of policies he supports.
Recently I listened to an album of a comedian. I liked his humor. Eventually he said that Obama is a pretty good president and got applause from the audience. This is typical mainstream ‘liberalism’ (their own naming, not necessarily an accurate description).
So it seems that people put what Obama allegedly wants for U.S. Americans above the continued and even intensified foreign politics of George W. Bush, of drone strikes, collateral damage, warmongering, lying and deceiving, generally spreading death and terror in the name of corporate and financial interests.

So to emphasize: He focuses on social needs, but only for his own nation, in stark contrast to how he acts towards others. (Not that this is a new thing for the USA.)
And here comes the whammy: You know what this is called?

National socialism. In German historical context abbreviated “Nazism”.

Combine that with the obviously growing fascism of the US government and you got a situation eerily reminiscent of early Nazi Germany. And ‘nobody’ noticed because there are no swastikas. … And because the more you condemn others and the past (hindsight being easily 20/20, and it always being easier to see someone else’s faults), the more you lose sight of the present.

The basic formula is that as long as sociopaths are allowed to run the show, you will get such political developments.

The Romanticization of Weapons

I’m watching a swordmaking series on Youtube, and on one video, someone commented that their kid watches the series with great excitement, but that at the end, when they slash pumpkins, bottles and such, they now have a guy do this in a zombie-slayer theme, slashing apart an anatomically relatively realistically looking zombie bust, and that this gives their son nightmares, and was asking them to remove it.

Now I was thinking back to that and it hit me how much people are in denial about an inconvenient fact that pop culture helped to blur:

Swords are weapons of war, meant for killing people.

All the pop media over a long period of time managed to give people the delusion that there is a moral difference between watching a sword fight and watching a shooting range. Swords have been ‘quaintified’, because they are not the weapon of choice in our times due to being inferior to guns.

Then again, even tons of computer games are all about shooting and killing, yet people make a troubling distinction between the act and the visualization like there’s a moral highground. It is conditioning the mind in an unhealthy way.
Yes, I myself would make a practical distinction, but I don’t kid myself that it’s a personal preference. If someone depicts gun violence in a shockingly realistic way (apart from the question whether that is glorifying violence), there is no right or wrong to their choice of depiction. It might be understandable to say that, for example, computer games with horrible depictions of violence shouldn’t exist, but they do, and people should stop twisting the focus on the depiction. That’s just realistic. Instead it should be discussed whether the gun violence depiction itself is desirable. Because if you start kidding yourself about the origins and nature of what you see, that becomes exploitable. For example, you see a US soldier blow a ‘terrorist’s’ head apart and you might be outraged that this is shown. But what about outrage about the act of violence itself? When you merely read about those things, it’s so easy to be fine with it, because you are not confronted with the full reality that comes along with it.
This also stifles the development of empathy.

When your young kids are playing, for example, the MMO World of Warcraft, they are playing a war game involving bloody violence. There are no bullshit excuses like “but it’s medieval”. You could just as well let them watch Game of Thrones. The only difference there is a more realistic depiction of the consequences of the actions that you also find players doing in World of Warcraft.
A huge part of entertainment media is still based on exploiting violent and death-oriented behavioral patterns and whitewashing happens to any degree necessary to make it acceptable to people who like to fool themselves.
If you allow your kids to play with toy guns, you’re conditioning them for violence and conflict. If you allow them to play with rubber swords, you’re doing the same thing. The difference is purely formal.

If Hitler was ruling these days, he might get inspired by Whack-a-Mole and there would be “Whack-A-Jew” browser games, and because it is fun and trivial, people would develop those associations and stop seeing jews as human beings. Because that’s a popular propaganda strategy for making people do horrible things: You have to make them feel good (about themselves) while they’re doing them.

Bottom line: It is alright to admire the skill that goes into the swordmaking craft, but it might still be a subject matter that’s reserved for a mature audience – for people who are not kidding themselves and can make distinctions and educated decisions.
All that’s bothering me (in many cases) is people deceiving themselves, not seeing things as they are. Because then they are not acting based on reality, which means they are shaping a different one with their actions, and if it’s based on conflict and violence, that’s not a good starting point. If you can change the world, why choose to do so for the worse?