Incredible Sacrifice – Shi Dakai (石達開)

Regaining_the_Provincial_Capital_of_Ruizhou
Standard

Shi Dakai (石達開) was one of the major leaders of the Taiping Rebellion, a failed peasant uprising against the corrupt Qing dynasty.  After accepting defeat at the hands of the Qing army, Shi Dakai sacrificed himself in exchange for the lives of his troops:

Shi Dakai Monument

A monument of Shi Dakai in Chengdu

 

On 13 June, Shi Dakai negotiated with the Qing to spare his men’s lives if he turned himself in. He entered Qing camps with three followers, dressed in formal Taiping uniform, and spoke to the Qing fearlessly. He was questioned and imprisoned, and on the 25th he was executed by slow slicing in the Anshun Court.

via Shi Dakai – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Even the Rich Can Enjoy High-Efficiency Capitalism

tumblr_mobketyeTc1rjeo9io9_1280
Standard

Even many within the 1% should be willing to accept High-Efficiency Capitalism where there is no poverty, and people compete for relative rather than absolute wealth (i.e. only 1 person is the richest and everybody competes for wealth rankings.)

Why would some people who have so much money under the current system prefer a system where they are still well off, but have less (in absolute terms)?  Because their relative rank would go up (in terms of wealth/recognition etc.)

Redeeming personality-types are found in all fields and sectors of society as are sinister personality-types.  Some genuinely kind-hearted people do find their way into realms of affluence.

They have a lot under the current system, but what they don’t realize is they would have MORE under a system where there is LESS inequality.  In a less oppressive society where there is no poverty (and only minor inequality,) there is greater truth.  Greater truth only threatens sinister personality-types that hurt others to get ahead in society.  Someone like Oprah would also be successful in a world without poverty.  However, many people who did questionable things to become richer than her might have a much harder time doing so in a humane society.  Thus, her relative rank goes up.

And it’s not just about wealth either.  In a world of zero poverty and genuine honesty, more compassionate human beings receive greater recognition and are actually less inhibited in their service to humanity.

Nobody’s perfect.  I feel Oprah has promoted excessive materialism and a very specious form of spirituality (i.e. colourful, but empty.)  I don’t like how she lauds the United States, describing it as “the greatest country in the world,” as if the ascendancy of Rome should eclipse the ruthlessness of its empire.

Having said that, I do think she is somebody who genuinely wants to alleve human suffering.  Leading up to the Iraq war, she did have a show that expressed her distaste of violence over peace.  However, it was met with the typical hysterical ultra-nationalism that applauds itself in suppressing any criticism or dissent.

So many of us have so much to say but can’t because there is no platform where such words are considered acceptable without sinister personalities taking advantage of the convenience of oppressing on behalf of (arbitrarily accepted) intellectual authorities.  Zero poverty allows truly resilient personalities to survive long enough to defend truth.

The more genuine characters within the 1% actually advance in terms of relative wealth/recognition in a society where there is no poverty at all.  Thus, there is some impetus for the rich to favour their wealth being redistributed fairly and properly (especially since the idea of property was arbitrary and anti-democratic to begin with.)

Ending poverty is also just the right thing to do and success within a system that is fundamentally elitist/oppressive is like being a major success in North Korea – is that really something we applaud?

“Treason,” They Wrote.

4021138500_19158c593f
Standard

(Rarely do I defend a political figure, and I really don’t know enough about this person to say I do or do not endorse her, but I still don’t think it’s fair to “frame” anybody for a crime they did not really commit.)

Canadian media has been going wild over the collapse of the Wildrose party.  Danielle Smith, the former leader of the recently dissolved party, has been accused of hypocrisy for telling others not to defect from the party, but then defecting herself.

The accusation of hypocrisy is problematic for many reasons.  First of all, Smith telling others not to leave, but eventually needing to leave herself is understandable.

A good analogy is a human pyramid.  When people start leaving the pyramid, obviously you attempt to keep the pyramid together by telling people not to leave.  However, if too many leave, (and for a “rival” pyramid that is actually quite similar,) eventually there comes a time when one has to call it quits and say that perhaps the best thing to do is for the two pyramids to merge.  Thus, it makes sense for someone to tell people not to leave, but to eventually have to leave as well.

Danielle Smith Wildrose Party

(I have no idea what the Japanese banner says.)

Furthermore, the Alberta Wildrose and Alberta PC parties are both conservative parties.  The federal “Liberal” and Conservative parties of Canada are already fundamentally indistinguishable.  There’s no point in the media focusing on bickering between parties that are fundamentally the same.  All this does is serve as a distraction from the fact that we are being ruled by a one-party system.  Thus, it’s a good thing for parties that are fundamentally the same to eventually merge so a REAL opposition can emerge. (I still think direct democracy is far superior to representative democracy though.)

Furthermore, people in the Canadian media are merely exploiting this incident so they can pretend they care about “hypocrisy” and the public.  People working in mainstream Canadian media are the most shameless, elitist hypocrites of all.  For them to exploit this to pretend character even matters to them is an extension of their hypocrisy.  Why don’t they report on the extreme hypocrisy of Harper condemning attacks on children in Pakistan while supporting the GENOCIDE of children in Gaza? Why is there no discussion of the extreme hypocrisy of condemning ISIS while cozying up to Saudi Arabia?

Nothing is more disturbing than people in mainstream media pretending they themselves have character. (Honest journalists and news people are sidelined or fired.)

Danielle Smith CBC Canadian News

“Yes! A chance to pretend I give a fuck about hypocrisy, character, or the public!” -His true nature

Direct Democracy

Aside

Elitists are terrified of direct democracy and want to pretend the public has no idea what is good for themselves.  Men like Friedrich Nietzsche characterized what he perceived to be slave and master mentality and clearly had a very sinister “master” mentality himself.

Again, people know what’s good for themselves overall.  If they make a mistake, then they suffer and learn their lesson.  Looking at the world right now, it’s obvious people who call for elitism have absolutely no idea what they are doing and never have.

If some people do not care one way or another about a particular issue, all they have to do is indicate that somehow and those who do care can decide.  However, minorities cannot just assume others do not care.  Such things must be formally indicated.

If people don’t feel they understand an issue, they can always do research, ask somebody they trust, etc.  A healthy, educated, and well informed public should be able to make correct decisions for themselves.  People who think they are SO much brighter than everybody else just need to find a way to explain their thoughts/plans/ideas to the public.

Property Rights and Academic Titles

Aside

All things must be accepted by the general public – not just through implied consent, but explicitly through polls and plebiscite.

Property rights and academic titles were enforced on the majority by a minority and are not real/official.

I think the public, through direct democracy, can grant such rights and titles to make society run more smoothly, but it still needs to be the public that consents to such things.  Anything else is the enforcement of tyranny.

One idea is for all academic titles to be stricken and then for the public to vote for who they actually think are intelligent to be part of academia (and perhaps for this to be a process that is repeated every few years.)  This ensures people do not enter academia solely through parroting elitist ideologies and can actually defend their reasoning/logic to the people.  If you can’t explain your reasoning to the common man, you probably don’t understand it well enough, in my opinion.

Another idea is to not even have formal academia.  People who would be academics can do the same work, but just on their own time and living off community handouts.  People who are good at science/technology can gather/work together and if they know what they are doing, their inventions will be notable successes.  If they do not, their creations will flounder.  It’s as simple as that.

The Elite Fit to Rule

Standard

The only elite fit to rule over humanity are those who understand the value of direct democracy, in my opinion.  They are the truly sane human beings who must push back any force that tries to enforce a minority will on the majority.

This “elite” supporting TRUE democracy can (and hopefully does) include the majority of people.

People’s emotions are more accurate than what elitists define as “logic/reason.”  Every person who pretends to be pure logic/intellect supports imperialism, military power, oppressing other groups, and – in many historical cases – slavery, racism, sexism, rape, torture, etc.  People who say they are pure logic/reason also despise direct democracy despite supporting invading other countries using the phoney excuse of spreading democracy.

People who pretend they are of advanced intellect always need to be extreme elitists who justify the worst abuses of power because in reality they aren’t reasonable or logical in the slightest.  However, if they talk in a condescending manner, create the illusion of intellectual sophistication, and support the oppressor, it makes no difference how stupid or nonsensical they are.

People’s emotions are LOGICAL and accurate the majority of the time.  For those times intuitive instinct is not accurate, logical extrapolation of commonly held truths to broader situations, allowing the maintenance of logical consistency, is helpful.

People who think pure logic can guide all actions are not logical at all in most cases.  They just don’t want humans to trust their gut instincts and want to enforce elitism using excuses designed to sound logical.

People should trust their instincts and temper it with a little bit of logic here and there for greater accuracy.  People who want humans to be PURE logic are typically asking for humanity to be wrong/inaccurate the large majority of the time under the illusion that such actions make sense from some special realm of advanced intellect (which in reality does not exist.)