Endangered Species

How can something as silly as elegance survive a million years amid sheer hostility?

These kinds of enigmas began haunting the
Vandal psyche in a deep past, when the first men turned into Vandals, thanks to what existence was doing to them, in fact. They couldn't help it: Nature was serving it to them every day, they had to fight the Elements, or perish. This was a corps-a-corps, all right, no blows held back, no quarters spared.

Vandalism grew out of a reaction to the harsh conditions in prehistoric times—but especially, because not everyone in the tribe was having it as hard.

Those who were struggling without a break became resentful. After another time, the minds were made up: there was an internal rebellion, and they split from the group, no longer able to sustain a daily parade of injustice. They did try hard to coexist, and then coerce the other members into experiencing life at their own level of suffering. But the happier fellows weren't losing their ability to be happy, no matter what. Then, the unhappy ones left the community. This was well over a million years ago. And the same happened wherever there were people in a group. Vandals have different names according as location of initial tribe. We historically think of them as Asian Herds who made a mess of things everywhere they passed, on their way to Europe; they also integrated there as other Barbaric Tribes did, eventually becoming lords.

Survival is an option...
Any creature runs a serious risk of disappearing, if it keeps betting on the power to prevail by its own strength, instead of frequently checking its selective capacity.

Self-Preservation Theorems
Survival only selects options!
Survival consists in selecting options.
Selectivity often bothers itself with desirable outcomes, and nothing less.
Optional Thinking: a course of action taken with a specific outcome in view.
When the outcome isn't clear, as such, options are selected by a system of personal preferences [likes & dislikes]. This is something that one does in a way, after envisaging all the other ways of going about it, to the extent of one's knowledge.

The Elixir of Self-Confidence
Self-confidence is a key to fixing all sorts of problems; we are universally trained to think of it in this light, and take it as a magic potion. However one says it, self-confidence is a key. This educational criterion is socially distributed regardless of creed, culture or status. Trendier venues warn their habitués: If your self-esteem is low, fix it—for, you can't fix anything without it.
Take this belief away: what is left? Who wouldn't feel as though the carpet had slid from under their feet?—a bully would, a grotesque villain; not only the good and loving people would.

Self-confidence, self-worth, self-image, self-esteem.
These 4 items are now generally used as one. What matters is to be able to do any one of them. The order is irrelevant, since they all mean the same thing: if you have one, you have the other 3. There is a variant belief: All is possible, if you own the set, of course, though 1 out of 4 will take you a long way!

These acclaimed precepts do not constitute the beginning of a second thought, wherever one spends the day.

Insinuation to the effect that one is nothing or a nobody without them seemingly requires no further questioning. Yet, revolutions often spark up over a lot less.

Unfortunately for both coaches and trainees these socially acceptable slogans & practices are apt to turn something good into a first-class psychic burden:
OBSESSIVE concern over self-significance leads to psychological mortification.
The more eagerly one strives for self-worth, the more convinced one grows of not owning any.
In other words, affirmation has another side to it. As I keep repeating to myself,
You can do it, you can do it, I am only confirming to myself that I can't do it!

Here, the driving-force is actually a war waged
against one's self-acknowledged limitation. This procedure uses up energy, which amounts to whole seconds, in terms of Athletics. And fractions of seconds are what most sports depend on...
If one is certain of not having any self-confidence, thinking of getting some may be a negative process—or negated at the outset. A better thing to tell oneself might be:
This thing I need is already there—I must find a way to bring it out!
First, don't look at it as an external object.

PHAEDRA on The 4 Musts:
Confiding is a mark of trust
Trusting someone also shows esteem
Worth is what one values
As to self-image, what one values generally reflects upon oneself.

Confidence & Self-confidence

From the Latin: With faith in oneself
One may use the word confidence by itself. A lion is a symbol of confidence.
A hero is confident.
In remembering Ancient Combatants, say confidence, not self-confident—which would be taking elegiac latitudes. It can even be offensive.

Self-concession is internal hazard
Self-concession is hazard enough as is, without adding that of neurotic self-confessions at random.

Confession does lighten up one's burden, brightens up one's day—it also makes one free, it gives life, by giving it back, and etc. And so is the power of confession universally acknowledged at all walks, including at street-level, where letting it all out became the war-cry of modern times. Nor would any emancipation have taken place without this expression of soul. Indeed, letting it all out is a way of going into the Holy of Holies, without going to church. Yet, self-confession can be a shortcut for becoming spiritually irreverent, even if one didn't mean it.

A [Christian] priest does not judge good or bad, he merely hears out what is to be heard in confessional sanctity, then puts the matter before God [through Jesus, in this instance.] He may absolve sin,
insofar as he has been invested with the means of performing such transaction. He may also cast out or banish noxious thought-forms, on this same basis, but would no more judge a person's behaviour or ideas than think of saying the Lord's Prayer on top of a Minaret during the yearly Pilgrimage at Mecca... Not that there ever is time for criticism in the heat of the action, for nothing is more complex than confessing someone. Basically, a sin may be absolved but no man or saint may dissolve it. Dissolution of Sin is a technique the Supreme Being has kept to Himself, while having made everything else available to us and thinking beings in all other worlds... This is what the famous Tree of Good & Evil stands for in Eden:
we can do all we like, good or very bad, but we may not deal with the consequences of our deeds or misdeeds, or propose ultimate judgment on the significance of our own acts—because it takes a kind of perception the Divine alone is capable of sustaining. The latest Cyborg-Prototype would melt, just thinking about it...

Frankenstein in the Streets...
Self-confession often is a shortcut to irreverence, because it is all too easy to forget what we are made of, and subsequently run a risk of assuming divine stance...

All pathology may be a variation on this theme.

Here is an explanation for the countless fanatical episodes in each era:
He is a fool who unwittingly assumes a divine stance. Such a cretin will turn into a psychopath, overnight—unless, of course, he realises that he had been in a state of Grace since birth, as we all are. Failing to acknowledge this fact, the maniac eventually becomes a fanatic, which is to say, one who works to undo life, to give it another shape.

Anyone who knows of terrorism only through the Media may be excused for thinking that it started a few decades ago with Carlos, The Jackal, reaching its apotheosis in Manhattan, courtesy of some Arab fanatics belonging to a large network of Arabs, whose forefathers invented terrorism and also cretinism in the Middle East!...

These views are so bruised, one could hardly walk on the jetty in a mild breeze without falling into the water...

Nor is it especially recommendable to hold on to such a standpoint for another decade, for safety's sake.

Discrimination—a sorting out of issues in context—is where security begins and succeeds or fails. Security-measures cannot fail when targeted on relevance. Whereas tightening the system becomes a nightmare: first, all sharp items are confiscated at the airport— but what if a couple of obnubilated fellows hijacked a plane by threatening the crew with spoons & forks, which can be just as lethal? Next thing you know, you can only eat liquid food with a straw during a flight.
It is not possible to use preventive-measures on a basis of withdrawing potentially lethal items, because anything at all may be turned into a weapon: a newspaper can be used to deliver a deadly strike, or derail a train.

The Pinocchio-Syndrome...
The list is endless, and it would be wishful thinking to suppose that terror-operatives were trained to make trouble with guns, sharp objects & explosives, only! Hence, confiscating items, tools & appliances only serves to paralyse life & commerce. Why not squarely impose Stalinism, to be safer? You can't go to the movies, as this could give some deranged individuals bad ideas—or you could go to an afternoon session, once a week, but only to see the same picture. Pinocchio, perhaps... And even that might be considered a threat to the state. Why? Because, Pinocchio goes out wandering, to seek out his life... Any despot knows that he has little time left in power, when his people begin to be moved by some simple casual curiosity as to what existence might be, out of a wooden shell.

Terror strikes away from its nest...
Tightening the security-bolts at large may also invite pockets of terror to proliferate elsewhere. Usually under one's nose. The same applies to most types of offenders. One is not born a bandit, one must acquire proficiency in these obscure arts. Recruits & converts would spend a time in kindergarten, then be moved to a training-camp. Even Nemesis needs nurturing, first of all. And when it is ready to strike chances are it would cause havoc anywhere, but where it has nested. What appears to be a random execution of civilians must be able to be reduced to an equation. The terms would be motive & purpose to be acted upon at a certain point in time, in a location that could be anywhere. But the area of impact must be at a variable distance from the point of origin. When it strikes near its nest, it must be weakened internally. When it strikes very far from its nest, it must do that in haste, to prevent breakdown in its own systems.

Difference between a volcanic eruption and a terror-strike:
A volcano is where it is; it strikes in its own time but always in the same general region.
Terror strikes all over the place, because it has no home, it only remembers having grown up somewhere.
If Nemesis had a home, what on earth would be left for it to reclaim?
Has it been robbed of its home?—is that possible at all?

History has had to put up with millions of turbulent monomaniacs. In most cases, these begin a career in social hallucination by destroying certain things, then the lot, convinced of doing everyone a service.

There is no way of assessing terrorism outside history.
Posterity is impartial, because it cannot afford casual aberration in language.

There has been so much terror in a thousand years past, adding up all bombings since 2000 hardly reveals anything new to the sin of crime. What could one call the events leading to the French Revolution, but pure terror? If the Inquisition wasn't a living terror, what was it? Likewise, Religious Wars, now with a Massacre of Catholics, then of Protestants; Genocide in Poland, Congo, Burundi, Cambodia, Bosnia—to name a few.

Mass-murder is as bad as it gets, but not calling it terror will not buy more safety. Because Charlie is out there spreading it under a different name.

This makes it all the more dangerous a predicament, considering that global rogues may now juggle with technical options, whereas earlier neurotics were so content after another kill, they could have reached the 27th century on horseback!... Then, it is high time to re-look at the picture, bearing in mind that technology specialises in making things smaller—and our world has become more portable; but so has crime.

Fanatics have been a terror to everyone since remote Antiquity. But these dipsomaniacs are found at the heart of major religious institutions, as well as in a jungle without culture, where dancing around a head stuck on a pole represents the highest moment in a tribal agenda for the month... If Cannibals aren't terrorists, what are they? Starved or ferocious, animals won't go near them!
1) Religious zealots, atheists or iconoclasts all are equally driven by a belief in a kind of paradise especially made for them.
2) They secure a place in it as they prove worthy of that glory—which they acknowledge to be greater than any earthly status.
Head-Hunters, or jungle-terrorists, have no interest in material power or worldly solace—because they don't live here. Existence is despicable to them; why should they respect life?
3) Whatever shape it takes, terrorism or fanaticism only exists because of a metaphysical belief in a higher life. Tyrants, bomb-throwers, stranglers or dictators live in hope of gaining entry into this select Valhalla. However, no one in this business expects free-access, prior to having undergone a modicum of cleansing. A human being is capable of abomination but will not pass away without some form of atonement or other. Self-purification is the foundation of this whole metaphysical edifice—and this is achieved most directly through confession! No one is unaware of sin. Only the meaning of it varies—and then, so does the method of atonement.

A rudimentary savage prepares for the After-Life by gathering so many lion-claws in a string, or putting up a collection of heads around the village... Delirious church-attendants would go after witches, instead.
Apart from occasionally enjoying the sight & sound of torture, these sadistic Inquisitors believed that the more odious the punishment they handed out, the better for their own soul:
3 more heretics expired on the rack today, 15 are still agonizing—I should be nearer God by week's end, at this rate!...

Chief Executives for the Nazi Program were likewise convinced of having been cleansed, and confessed, for taking another 8,000 people away from the world:
This is doing everyone a big favour!... But, now, tell me—how many did we do this month, all combined!... 143,000? Hmm, we could do a little better; still, in a year we may almost without a sin in us—even at that slow pace!...

Here again, a group of visitors from another planet would spend a time with us, learning our ways, our History. What do they think as they watch a documentary on the Nazi period?...

Reportages From Afar
TITLE: Stupidity versus Atrocity
Sophie, Jack & Louise

You seem perplexed, rather than horrified; am I right?
XYLO [one of 2 visitors—many more being guests elsewhere]
We don't have this, where we come from...
A world of human people, and no atrocity?...
We have them, too. But...
Not as bad, hey?
Maybe not quite the same type—but I don't mean that. It's, it's how you call it! We don't refer to our atrocities as horrible, and leave it at that, you see, once we know where it has happened and who was involved, the whole population becomes one voice, pointing a finger at the perpetrators. These are dismissed to indefinite oblivion, for having been so vividly stupid—not because they were atrocious! To us, a monster measures the extent of idiocy. Crime & cruelty stem from that.

gold bullett Club version sample

gold line

More Strategies links:

Psychological Impact of Economic Depression

Logistics of Economic Values

Ways of Fighting

Multicultural Warfare


Author: René Blundo
Copyright Futureprimer © 2005-2010
Last update: 3 February 2007
Background and graphics created with Gimp Website design: Kathryn Errol © 2004-2010
Futureprimer Administration: Renata Jones
Contact Us