sunshinenbrick

The 'blame' must be shared though, as it's clear that it is also somewhat convenient to maintain things as they are because many people also benefit from the setup. Directly or indirectly. It's the same everywhere.

It isn't really a 'Trans' law... It is more about personal identity. There are no real rights being violated... other than the 'right' not share a public space with certain members of the public. When saying the 'vast' majority, who exactly are we talking about as this cannot be so easily assumed.

Very insightful. Outside having sex with the other, what does it actually mean to be a 'man' or a 'woman'? I don't think sexuality or sexual 'orientation' is as clear cut as people tend to portray. Even if you are attracted to the opposite sex, you may still feel challenged by and/or compare yourself to other members of the same sex. We are generally quite intelligent beings, which makes or social structures and relationships very complex and diverse. Additionally, in the drive for an almost dogmatic like productivity we have also built an ever increasingly competitive environment where we are constantly urged to look a certain way, seek specific behaviours and avoid others. All the while we can forget how naturally strange and diverse being a human actually is.

'Trans' could be applied to both physical or mental states. It is whether other people see you as 'trans-gender', even if you look and feel the part, not solely how you perceive things yourself. This is not to say it doesn't matter of course, how you feel inside (or outside) is very important, but if you are ostracised by society anyway then it can make little difference to your quality of life. Thinking about it more broadly, we all go through periods of transition within our lives, including sexually - being a boy is very different to being a man, some of that is physical transition and some of it mental/psychological. Perhaps it is also the deeper and wider feelings of alienation, competitiveness and insecurity that exaggerate many of the divisions among communities and drives people to resort to ever increasing forms of xenophobia. What is sadly ironic is we are so afraid of losing 'rights' even when we likely don't really have them in the first place. Then when we feel threatened by some potential (and usually part imaginary) threat we predictably focus on those who are in a weaker minority and in turn confine ourselves to an ever narrower set of principles. Of course all this isn't just about unisex bathrooms, as I have said, and it shows some of the questionable tactics of political engineering - if you bombard people from multiple angles they will become so confused and anxious that they can't think clearly or organise themselves.

The scars of slavery run forever deep into American culture and history. Europe and Africa as well for that matter, and institutionalised racism towards 'non-white communities' is still rampant in these places too. It's all perfectly 'legal', subtle and passive... but that is what is meant by 'institutionalised' - it is difficult to pin down. Of course over many many decades the whole thing has transformed and taken on a life of its own and the statistics and data all point to convenient truths... again this is what is meant by it being 'institutionalised' - it is, perhaps even unintentionally, rigged so that the sheer probability makes it privileged for some and more difficult for others. This isn't unique to race, but is certainly affected by it. Going in all guns blazing, as has been discussed, would not solve the issue because it would create a whole new, even bigger, one. Just look at the middle east... it's a pretty poignant parallel in some ways - you have something we want, manpower/resources/money, we don't want to share or give up our 'entitlements', and so by hook or by crook we are going to get it. Some of the biggest and most prolific 'thugs' in our world are also among the most prosperous and powerful (and probably not African American...). Perhaps we all know this and know how helpless it is so therefore target the people around us who we can. It's like the psychology thought experiment where the father/mother hits the older child who hits the younger child, who kicks the cat. It's also actually a bit like the end of The Beach where they know if they pull the trigger they have failed and the whole dream is over. ... So is there any solution? I think their is, but governments and corporations are going to have to come clean about a lot of stuff and take responsibility for creating a more just and equal society. Stop lying to people and give them honest truths so that more co-operative and common objectives and economies can be created. Truly living 'within our means' and in respect of other beings and the planet. Pfft... but that all likely sounds like just too much hard work for most ordinary folk, and those who have already 'inherited the earth' (and probably anything else we colonise should we get the chance) are not going to give up their 'god-like' status any time soon without species threatening levels of war. A world-wide uprising would have unpredictable results too so is perhaps not even worth the risk. I do maintain some faith though, however difficult and bleak it seems a lot of the time. I believe that slowly (and accepting the inevitability of violence) we will make progress to bring people and communities together while maintaining the wonderful variety and flavours of culture which make us different and creative. For example, I think that in the case of communities run by gangs (which by the way happen within ALL societies and may not have the traditional 'Police Camera Action' style stereotypes - take the sorority college institutions or yeah.. the police, which operate much like gangs), a lot could be done to actually improve these people's lives and create jobs, a role within society, and the economy as a whole. They probably 'do' such things already, although probably half-hearted and semi tongue-in-cheek. It is slow and it is not going to be easy for either side, but I do think it is this... or bust. The last and only other 'option', is an international (world) war directed by the government in which people have to overcome their differences... or lose. However, coupling what I said earlier about those whom already 'own' us, with the fact that any large altercation with the USA would bring us all to the brink, it will certainly not be these communities or any other of the majority of communities we supposedly care so much about that will gain anything from such events - more likely they will be largely wiped out to be replaced with a new wave of indoctrinated generations that are ever more out of touch with who they are or where they come from.

Isn't one of, if not THE, most powerful idea in support of 'western democracy' is that the minority is of equal importance as the majority, and that this is how many of the freedoms and opportunities we have today were won?

In most public places I simply do not see it being a problem at all. Maybe 'new' for some at first but it would very soon just feel normal. The issues arise in areas where people feel strongly about it. It's stoking a fire. But that is not to say there are not a lot of fires being stoked right now. This is just one bonfire in our new brave world of wicker men. Personally I don't have an issue with unisex bathrooms at all. In fact I feel safer in them (like the ones at festivals or airports n stuff). There is none of the unproductive um... 'hierarchy' shite, and as long as the facilities are safe, clean, and relatively... you know... private :D. What I DO have a problem with however, is the methods and tactics used to introduce such ideas. It is like they do it because they know it will cause conflict. I think a good majority of people (considering the high densities that live in cities) don't actually worry about or even have time to worry about generally trivial matters when they gotta worry about keeping their job, making the bills, looking after their kids and putting food on the table. Especially when many places are quite public already with CCTV or other such surveillance anyway. The thing is that just by making a big fuss about the law and the fear-mongering that follows, it just turns the whole thing into a much larger issue - much like the case with many other things.. and again I'm not sure it isn't always an 'unforeseen consequence'.

Gender is only one among many ways to differentiate between people, and likewise it is somewhat arbitrary in defining the personality or predisposition of said people. As touched upon earlier (no pun intended!), just because I may where a dress when I go to the bathroom doesn't make me any more likely to be a 'risk' than if I wore a baseball cap and jeans. Adopting some such stereotypes for a second, I would in fact argue that empirically the exact opposite is usually true and it is the 'quiet one in the corner' who looks 'normal' that is the one you should be worried about. I mean look at the Church for example...unsettling business happens anyway as things are, and always have. There is a case to say that the increased openness in society might actually help, but as stated, mindsets (and physio-sets) can be slow to change. Very slow. But different we are, and conflict in our nature. Now all this is of course actually a slightly different argument to the one about governments that make blanket decisions for people and then imposes it upon them, even when it actually only aggravates the situation. This is an issue that spreads into many aspects of society and I worry such legislation is really more a method of assimilation than it is upholding the rights of any person or people. It is important to distinguish between that which we are 'supposed to think' and that which we arrive at on our own, because otherwise we may actually end up promoting the loss of the very values we claim to hold dear. 'Freedom isn't free'

Defragmenting an SSD will reduce the read/write cycles (life of HDD), and the nature of SSD means that defragmenting does next to nothing in terms of performance... in a sense that is why they invented them!

Why do you think so? I don't really see how the two are connected. But, I suspect the human race will destroy itself in any event...... I don't give us more than another 100 years. :D Either we will become part robot or be replaced by them entirely (I'm putting my bets on the former). Gender, and probably many other characteristics, will become appendable, material, perhaps even 'obsolete'. Yeah we may very well try wipe each other out, and succeed to some degree, but even if 'we' don't, then other things will still progress on. Furthermore, and as I believe I have eluded to in this thread before, these 'problems' are only for us plebeian folk as in such a future our societies will likely be distilled ever further than they already are. There is of course an alternative but this perhaps begins to call into question the definition of 'progress' a little... I'm open, but let's be honest. So yeah whichever way you look at it, I'd agree it's largely irrelevant.

Surely just a matter of perspective. Bigotry is a given. 'Androgynity' in some form is kinda inevitable if we are to progress technologically... which is likely. Unless of course... and even then... ...life will still go on. (pretty ironic!)

That is exactly what I myself was trying to say... I thought I detected a hint of critical sarcasm in what you were saying - 'exciting' and 'grounded', or 'drifting discussion' can be used in such a way. I guess technology does still have its limitations, and perhaps I was mistaken, and I do enjoy your points of view and contributions, very much so! :yes: I also guess, that as these things we are discussing here are actually happening and developing as we speak, then open and speculative debate is simply inevitable whether any of us like it or not. This might also explain any sense of enthusiasm or attention to detail that may arise, however 'rational' a proposed 'solution' might appear. Suppose the only walls we have are those of the room we are in... Thanks, appreciate it. Sorry if some of my posts seem sarcastic, they aren't intended that way. English is not my main language so it's hard to formulate thoughts correctly into text sometimes, plus my perception of posts may be somewhat incorrect, so I kinda apologize. And yeah, it's rather hot topic these days, hard not to discuss, heh. One thing that makes this debate actually really interesting (for me anyway) is international public here, seen some quite unexpected opinions on the matters. Your language and communication skills appear very good in my opinion. And even though English is my 'main language' I still struggle to be completely comprehensible sometimes (perhaps more often than I would like :laugh:). I think a lot of communication happens outside what we say and technology has always struggled with the nuances of our nature. I think actually therein is where the Pandora's Box to much of our inner and inter complications lie. Artificial Intelligence™ and cybernetics/bionics will surely open the doors to a truly brave new world... but maybe a separate topic is needed.

That is exactly what I myself was trying to say... I thought I detected a hint of critical sarcasm in what you were saying - 'exciting' and 'grounded', or 'drifting discussion' can be used in such a way. I guess technology does still have its limitations, and perhaps I was mistaken, and I do enjoy your points of view and contributions, very much so! :yes: I also guess, that as these things we are discussing here are actually happening and developing as we speak, then open and speculative debate is simply inevitable whether any of us like it or not. This might also explain any sense of enthusiasm or attention to detail that may arise, however 'rational' a proposed 'solution' might appear. Suppose the only walls we have are those of the room we are in...

Somewhat peculiar the supposed bedazzlement around the nature of cultivated open discussion and debate (previously noted dirty supposition tactics aside). But then having said that... If recent events and much of this discussion show, is that 'assimilation' is very flawed, however much logic is vehemently applied to it. Equally, a highly secular approach is frought with problems too. Humans are often illogical creatures, their actions contradictory to their ideas. Even so, I would most likely choose flexibility and variety over an adamant blindsided regime. The latter being what people seem so critical of when it is different to their own. How absurdly contrived! Suppose this brings about the point made on the 'obsolescence' of morals. Morals are closely tied to 'free choice', and although I personally adopt a holistic like approach to this (a divergence of scale), it thus strikes me as ironic that the proposal of the importance of democracy surrounding UK membership of the EU has been fought with such enthusiasm. Madness... Or basic ethical conundrum! :laugh: It is relatively 'simple' to see why Western cultures still hold the ideals of personal freedom etc... etc... (even if it often fails spectacularly). If not, then perhaps some more insightful research would be forthcoming. Not that I don't agree that not all the solutions are found in a single ideology. Unbelievable as it may be I have met many people who have benefited from good will, generosity and the cooperation of others. Whether you define such phenomena as 'charity' or not does not detract from the fact it happens, and most of us have been stricken by that brush whether you realise/acknowledge it or not. Regarding corruption in places like Africa, well if the game is rigged (through deliberate means or simple things like geography or ecology) it is unsurprisingly more difficult. On further thought, and specifically regarding ideas put forward on human intelligence, I think 'automation' explains many of the phenomena that we see and experience. In a sense intelligence is almost irrelevant, or at least fundamentally unmeasurable. The phrase 'simple in concept, complex in application' springs to mind. Evolution writes it's own book, so to speak. So... to join in and thus pitch in my own vexations about debate/discussion, I suppose it is evident right here in the 'automation' of, essentially the same, ideas and points being made through our own personal star-dust filled kaleidoscopes. Not to say it isn't 'worth while' of course, because it is done and so is part of that which is. To return 'on topic' I would therefore say that the future of the EU has not happened yet, although through the study of 'automation' and, possibly narcissistically, history a number of possible futures can be estimated. Predictions of the future in the past have however shown, that while the reality does manifest itself in identifiable forms, nihilism is also prevalent. As usual, only time will tell...

Globalisation will be there whatever happens. The international trade of resources, labour etc... etc... will go ahead anyway because that is essentially the only way it will work. If people actually believe that things will stop 'at the borders' so to speak, then they have bought into a lie. The real question is WHAT KIND of globalisation we will have. The EU situation is a complex one because a lot of it was built on positive ideals. The key word here is 'ideals' and it shares many of the same problems that the 'American Dream' has in that not everybody can have everything. Many of the things we have entitled ourselves to and the freedoms given to citizens has to have a cost somewhere. For the last few decades this has of course come at the expense of lesser developed parts of the world. Of course they have made some progress too, but now that they are think 'yeah, I wouldn't mind having part of that dream as well' then all the people who have been living it for so long start to freak out because they don't like the idea of losing the things they have gained - even though for the most part we haven't actually gained or achieved even a fraction of the things we like to give ourselves credit for i.e. did you actually make your phone, mine for minerals in Africa, or work in a sweatshop in Bangladesh? Not likely, no. So when the s*** starts hitting the fan do we look to ourselves and each other and think 'I should give these things up and live more within my means'? Again, no, not likely. Instead we follow the narrative of 'it's them, over their, it's their fault.' It's an easy sell in many cases, the ironic thing being that we will end up losing out anyway as the money will only ever go up the chain and we will keep frantically digging to scrape the bottom of the barrel, by which time it is too little too late. Now the EU, as with many other global organistaions or corporations, are not necessarily, inherently, 'evil'. There is potential in the world to do good things as I think James pointed out in his post. Not using planned obsolescence and actually using technology to improve lives and bring people together, as a brief example, rather than feeding the profit driven industry that doesn't actually have any but a very select few people as beneficiaries. The EU in many ways is what people want it to be, unfortunately it has been pretty much hijacked by a corporate a political elite who are in many ways sociopathic and are losing regard for people because... it isn't 'profitable'. Of course it all depends how you define 'profit' though, and I think we have an endemic misunderstanding and disassociation with the things that really matter, food, shelter, love of other human beings etc... No, I MUST have the new iPhone or BMW otherwise my life just simply isn't worth living... The rejection of the EU is a rejection of these principles and the disease that has infected us, I do not really believe it is a rejection of our fellow wo/men. However this is not how it will be presented to us, it will be another dose of 'it's them, over there, it's their fault', and nothing will actually change for the better for us common folk. Like I said, globalistaion will continue, but now it will happen behind closed doors and become harder for the plebeians to make the bigger changes. We have become our own worst enemies in many regards, but then this isn't to say we haven't been encouraged to do so either. The packaging might be different but the product is still the same - divide and rule.

Isn't this a contradiction?? Does't the turtle also benefit from existing? Which it would do for longer was it not being exploited so. A symbiosis? I share a lot of your sentiment, but I think there is something in the sustainable and considered use of resources, rather than simply using of them as quickly as possible till they are gone... what is the point of the science and technology if you are no longer able to use it, for example? If it is literal it is a contradiction; if it is not literal then it must mean something else. Or perhaps it means nothing, only words with no meaning. The truth is often found in the middle of two extremes. You said all roads lead to Rome, and I respond all roads lead away from Rome. In a literal sense which of us is right? Or are we both wrong? Or perhaps your phrase was not meant to be taken literally. Two maggots infested the flesh of a dead elephant. One maggot said to the other "we should temper our indulgence in this creatures flesh, we must make it last or we will surely starve and not live long enough to grow our wings." The other maggot responded "if we do not eat well then how will we grow strong enough to fly away from this creature's dead carcass?" Or was it a dead mouse? I don't remember. I apologise for my intrusion. I know my words add nothing to your debate, so I will respectfully withdraw and trouble you no more. Carry on debating. Indeed. In fact I agree with a great deal of what you are saying and I think it encapsulates much of what I have been trying to say. I detect a hint of critical irony in your post being of a similar disposition on many occasion myself, however I might be completely wrong. I may also not being making myself and my thoughts clear or comprehensive enough. The problems and solutions are both simple, but at times abstract too, requiring a certain nuance which I likewise think your posts reflect well. Agree to disagree? Even if I am personally a little sure where the one begins and the others ends? War and Peace :wink:

Is this supposed to be an example of kindness and tolerance? :tongue: Besides, isn't radicalism relative? And if 'liberals' don't understand it, then who are the radicals? Conservatives? Perhaps unfortunately, political appropriation (not to mention cultural language differences) has made it difficult to commonly define these things - for example history has shown us that Conservatives (usually with a capital 'C') are often the most progressive and liberal of the bunch. They are also for a reason rarely associated with kindness and tolerance. True enough, 'conservatism' (with a small 'c'), which I find often can define many of my own personal values (although I consider myself a mixed bag, not being fond of labels, particularly those given by others), does promote many such qualities. However, so does 'liberalism' (with a small 'l'), and it ultimately largely depends on personal/social connotations and semantics. I'm not so sure it as easy, or quite so binary, as you appear to imply here. Isn't this a contradiction?? Does't the turtle also benefit from existing? Which it would do for longer was it not being exploited so. A symbiosis? I share a lot of your sentiment, but I think there is something in the sustainable and considered use of resources, rather than simply using of them as quickly as possible till they are gone... what is the point of the science and technology if you are no longer able to use it, for example?

Rather than do that I'd close any Mosque that is found to preaching hate or even worse, and there are those that do, as a place of worship they're fine, as a recruiting office for radicals they are not and need to be got rid of if that sort of thing is found to be going on. You close down a mosque, you give Isis the chance to call you antimuslim. You charge them and have them physically bury the dead, you show them what those who call themselves Muslim are doing in the name of their religion and place the idea that these terrorists are the ones that is causing their grief which may get cause those Muslims that have t do this work to see the benefits of policing up their own selves, which will completely remove the chance of Isis using any of this.The liberal fantasy is that if you are reasonable with your enemies they also will react with reason. Some ideologies have no compromise position. Radical Islam is not much different from Nazism..sociopathic lack of empathy for their victims, pseudo religious trappings and a haven for disaffected killers. Back when, we (the allies ) insisted on unconditional surrender of the Axis powers..which did not occur until we pulverized their infrastructure into the bronze age and occupied their territory for decades. We are fast heading to a point where that will be our only viable option. It is probable that was the plan from the start, both then and now. The real challenge is to try replace such ideologies and regimes with something better... which is where things get murky - modern capitalism increasingly sharing many of the same attributes of that which it proposes to claim moral dominance over.

A good deal of that depends on who and what you listen to. Mainstream media will sing to the tune of whatever gets people riled up as it ensures more outrage and thus more readers/viewers. Staying silent, or out of the issue does not automatically imply endorsement or approval, where is the freedom to remain silent if that is the case?? If you think it has nothing to do with you anyway then why would you 'get involved'? Many people would see that as an admission of guilt too - damned if you do, damned if you don't. Lest we forget it was 'us' who steamrolled our way into many parts of the world post WWII, Gulf War, Iraq, Syria... wherever next... so I guess, yeah, they are involved now. Bill Hicks' 'pick up the gun' comes to mind... Many muslims DO speak out against such crimes, and are in fact are the victims of it! How many muslims have you actually spoken to on the subject? When they do speak out, why would the western media promote it anyway, as it doesn't help their cause? Seriously are you insane . I don't ever recall Nigel Farange , Donald Trump or Charlie Hebdo ever calling for the deaths of anyone . I don't know if you understand what freedom of speech is about but the people of Charlie Hebdo did and its what got them massacred by people who follow a particular ideology and would silence that very freedom of speech. The equivalency you made was not only embarrassing it show a complete ignorance of what it is that you are faced with . Are you serious? Drone attacks? Iraq? Syria? You don't have to use the word 'death' in order to incite bigotry, hatred, violence, and to point the finger at others for all the ills in peoples' lives. Is it really necessary to point these things out, or are you just unwilling to see both sides of it? The mechanics of how these things happen is always, somewhat conveniently, hard to pin down, and it is also easy to turn a blind eye and not make connections when it happens in a desert, thousands of miles away. The subject wasn't Drone strikes , iraq , or Syria but freedom of speech and how some deem it necessary to kill simply for expressing a point of view . If you want to talk about how Iraq was a war crime or drone strikes are a completely unjust and ineffective means that should only be used in the direst of circumstance or how our so called allies are funding a terrorist war in Syria with our (the West's) complicity , ok . But that wasn't what I was speaking to . Try not to conflate the woe's of the world to what I was speaking to. My apologies, but there is a connection between the way in which western governments have twisted things and promoted certain points of view so as to further their agenda. Freedom of speech should not be affected by who you are or what you are saying. BOTH sides have caused unimaginable death and suffering, just because the west does not have to always resort to 'guerilla tactics' in order to achieve their goals does not make those actions any less atrocious or reprehensible. Nor that those actions will instill an obvious retaliation - if someone murders your family and takes away all you know and love, would anyone in 'the west' just accept it? Not likely, so why should they? It might be an uncomfortable question, but it is a legitimate one. I'll admit the message can sometimes be very subtle, if even presented, but these things still happen and the results are equally devastating. A crude example (no pun intended, honest!), is how governments and the media will steer the narrative, and also provide the environment where people in the west are killing and causing destruction just by doing what they do best... consuming. New cars, phones, cheap energy, oil, products, products, and more products. Where does all that come from? Who bears the worst of the cost? There is a very ugly side to globalisation and western capital that we rarely, if ever, see, sitting in our living rooms watching chewing gum television while we munch on Nestle and guzzle down Coke. Then when things get tough and we start moaning about how hard life is, who do they turn to for blame? You guessed it, 'rapist Mexicans' and 'evil muslims' etc... etc... 'oh, it's all their fault!', so lets build a wall and then blow them all up so we can take everything for ourselves. It's modern day colonialisation, simple as. Like I said, you don't have to say 'go kill these people' in order to get your message across and get what you want. Having said that, some of the rhetoric spouted these days begs belief... then when we look at mainstream and social media, or underground meetings of EDL, the KKK, or whatever, there are things said there that are on par with anything I imagine is said on the 'other side'. Where is the condemnation of this, often blatant, hate speech? As suggested in another post, to remain silent, or to even give a platform for it, can be seen by many as much a condoning of such views and actions as having done it yourself. I am not really picking sides here as I find all of it deplorable and distasteful, but let us at least look at these things through the same lens, with open, unprejudiced eyes, and not rose-tinted glasses.

A good deal of that depends on who and what you listen to. Mainstream media will sing to the tune of whatever gets people riled up as it ensures more outrage and thus more readers/viewers. Staying silent, or out of the issue does not automatically imply endorsement or approval, where is the freedom to remain silent if that is the case?? If you think it has nothing to do with you anyway then why would you 'get involved'? Many people would see that as an admission of guilt too - damned if you do, damned if you don't. Lest we forget it was 'us' who steamrolled our way into many parts of the world post WWII, Gulf War, Iraq, Syria... wherever next... so I guess, yeah, they are involved now. Bill Hicks' 'pick up the gun' comes to mind... Many muslims DO speak out against such crimes, and are in fact are the victims of it! How many muslims have you actually spoken to on the subject? When they do speak out, why would the western media promote it anyway, as it doesn't help their cause? Seriously are you insane . I don't ever recall Nigel Farange , Donald Trump or Charlie Hebdo ever calling for the deaths of anyone . I don't know if you understand what freedom of speech is about but the people of Charlie Hebdo did and its what got them massacred by people who follow a particular ideology and would silence that very freedom of speech. The equivalency you made was not only embarrassing it show a complete ignorance of what it is that you are faced with . Are you serious? Drone attacks? Iraq? Syria? You don't have to use the word 'death' in order to incite bigotry, hatred, violence, and to point the finger at others for all the ills in peoples' lives. Is it really necessary to point these things out, or are you just unwilling to see both sides of it? The mechanics of how these things happen is always, somewhat conveniently, hard to pin down, and it is also easy to turn a blind eye and not make connections when it happens in a desert, thousands of miles away.

Wonder if the same laws apply to the likes of Nigel Farrage, or The Daily Mail? How about Donald Trump for that matter? Charlie Hebdo? Or is that just to be taken as 'freedom of speech'?

We are aware these are humans, families, and children, right? Rounding people up into sectioned areas sounds suspiciously like places visited in the past. There is an argument to say that the many amenities and luxuries of the 'upper tier countries' are what need to be curbed rather than the movement of people (ourselves included), which will only become more abundant as climate change and corporate globalisation (regardless of the causes) transforms our planet. In the long run why would companies and governments (and one another) want to encourage all populations to live like kings and queens (which many in the 'west' do, especially in relative terms). i.e. is it really a priority to give people holiday pay so they can buy a new smartphone and waste time chasing virtual animals... other than to distract them from the realities of having their lives slowly owned by the companies/governments they think serve them. In a world of increasingly scarce resources, such as water, arable land, and oil then we must either learn to share more and not be so greedy, or the last laugh will be on us. The vast majority of us, including you, me and only but the select few, will not benefit from a race to the bottom. We will enslave ourselves by chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (or 'Pokemons' as the case may be...). Surely people are aware of this? Maybe not the masses, but thoughtful and curious people here I am sure are able to see this, no? Do people forget so easily? Do you not see the genius of the plan to 'destroy' economies, create false flag attacks and then divide people through panic and fear? It has littered our media and literature for decades now and could not be much more obvious in many cases. C'mon, it isn't tinfoil hat stuff anymore... I sometimes think that they could literally put out official posters stating this stuff and people are so flipping confused and bewildered that they would still bury their heads in the sand and think it is their neighbour plotting against them (who is likely equally confused and bewildered, and probably is). It is painful to watch and listen to. It also makes you wonder whether there is any hope for people to wake up. As for surveillance... if you don't think that is happening, or that it isn't an effective form of control then it really is a sorry state of affairs indeed. :confused: EDIT: I would like to point out that none of the above excuses the wrong doings that happen. What I am saying is that we should not bundle large groups of people into categories based on the actions of a minority within 'that group'. This is in fact the very ideology driven behind things like ISIS and other terrorist organisations - they see 'the west' as all the same, even those that they claim to represent. Look the other way and it is exactly the same behaviour that many powers in the west employ, i.e. ISIS no more represent the majority of islamic religion/cultures than, for example, Goldman Sachs or the rest of 'the establishment' represent the values of most 'western' citizens. What it is about is seeing through the noise and hypocrisy, to challenge the narrative and be open to thinking for yourself and not simply 'follow the herd'. It is simple and easy to do this, life is hard despite our (current) access to many freedoms. The point is not all freedoms make you free or are of any value - just because you can doesn't always mean you should. I am not an anti progressive by any means, and yet I do believe at the same time that many are led up the garden path to pursue and indulge in things that are useless and temporary while being under the illusion that they are the opposite. Even as a 'pro western capitalist' many of these things are just plain wrong, if not actually downright stupid a lot of the time. Fighting an ideology is surely not about doing the exact same thing under a different name...

Surveillance seems to be the way things will go everywhere, not just in the EU. Many terrorists are 'homegrown', and have lived there for many years, even from a young age. Although the attacks are horrible, they have their roots in the West's failure all round to deal with the ideologies. Nothing will cease till then because it will actually just add fuel to the fire. It is not like Europe, UK and US don't employ a similar ideology either and it is well known that they have exasperated, perhaps even caused, many of the problems that have arisen recently. Not so much the individual, but the expansive globalist empire that has been created, and gone wrong in many ways. I think inside many of us can see that terrorists can be a great scapegoat for the failures of government. I would not be surprised to see an increase in 'native terrorism' if these atrocities were not there to release the pressure - or, to coin their favourite term, bring 'solidarity'.

But surely what 'the people' WANT is a more balanced left/right (or to simply be pragmatic and fair), rather than to replace it with the authoritarian right? I don't think we will get that though, because government is authoritarian, it has to be in order to govern. Politics is actually becoming increasingly obscure and irrelevant to the general population, much of it seemingly out of reach. People are lied to and given false choices across the board, from every stripe. As David Cameron said, 'we're all in it together', which I think was as much a warning than any kind of devolution of power.