1) Ice hockey offseason 2022 and 2021 democratic capitalist society essays, made for laymen  2)  Tweet showcase from before 2022

1) Treatises on not strictly *me* the Identitarian--it's on ALL OF US, the DCSers!
 

                                                                                                   2022

                                                    Envisioning a Future with No Second American Civil War

Do all good things really come to an end? As the very fate of the United States is now being brought up: there is active talk of secession and a “Brexit” like outcome for certain American states—done peacefully or not. What could forestall such conflict is a broad, novel order for democratic capitalist society (DCS) in the first place. Potential notions to institutionalize include, to cooperate more efficiently at home, being inspired by borderless ideals. As well, recognizing voluntary belief as a center of gravity--for good or bad. This discourse also investigates the fault may be less in the democratic capitalist system itself but more on the values of those participating in it. Acting promptly to correct such values and rallying around newly realized truths of human nature can transcend the status of being hopelessly stuck in modern day problems.

The 21st century has worldwide technology, worldwide economics. Yet why isn’t there a corresponding worldwide politics? Correcting this deficiency would do great help for those pushing for all the globe to be on the same page on all-encompassing issues like climate change. To make this a reality, could there be a drive, an inspiration for what globalization hasn’t pulled off yet: the collapsing of all borders? This type of ethos wouldn’t just have electoral benefits. At the lowest level, human judgments, assumptions, and stereotypes can be rife when at the verge of approaching a stranger. 

In a new situation when one crosses the line to interact—finally get it over with---the anxiety is over with. Correspondingly, situations get magnified to global proportions, and nations can get uneased at the potential of dealing with a foreign neighbor or differing ethnic group. This problem of space was evident in the 1990s conflict between Hutus and Tutsis, where Time magazine noted that "Rwanda is an explosive crucible that nations watching from a comfortable distance have no idea how to handle." Moreover, a de-boundarying spirit could extent to the workplace where fewer parameters in a job could lead to more autonomy.

It can be said that this borderless vision is all a pipe dream. But some may have had enough on life on the world as it is now—and are working towards new frontiers. Entrepreneurs today are more boundless in reach than those in political institutions: Elon Musk not just extends not his vision to markets overseas, but realms beyond Earth. Meanwhile, government is more bogged down with narrower concerns on its own jurisdiction; facing off over internal democracy gets protracted from the Civil War to the current deliberation on voting rights bills. In contrast, leaders in the United States solved domestic problems previously by evoking places outside the country—the Japanese making an armed incursion into 1940s Hawaii was one rallying cry that Washington seized to galvanize its citizenry. The ideal of borderlessness could what’s needed today to further fire up the imagination of conflicted citizens and politicians alike.

      *    *    *  

It is indeed a conflicted world, for it was said by Pliny the Elder that “the only certainty is that nothing is certain.” Thousands of tumultuous years later, that statement still holds. Sweeping waves of industrialization have vanquished alchemy but not unpredictability; the injustice stemming from the latter has also failed to be wiped out. Rectifying this unfairness looms large in the American ethos, as the Pledge of Allegiance concludes to advocate a nation with “justice for all.” Yet “justice” for the ordinary citizen is not attained by push button; Sen. Ted Cruz affects his guns rights stance more by committee, than in reaction to social media trolling following the shooting in that lawmaker’s state of Texas. 

Perhaps keeping a lid on injustice means increasing control. Running a tight societal ship may result in more controlled fairness, albeit at a cost of natural order that a more freewheeling DCS would permit. But could the “March for Our Lives” sentiment prevail over Second Amendment advocates? Or will there be caches that private militias will load upon for use in a second American Civil War? That said, DCSers are free to use their “freedom” to disrespect others as well as respect them. When disrespect builds up—and it does so in the political landscape--how can a fractious sequence end up as? Less cooperation to solve ever-more complex economic and technological problems. Rising sea levels, adjusting lean manufacturing to fix the supply chain crisis, making transhumanism ethical, and more.

Lack of cooperation shows now, as the division in the United States has never been this stark in recent years. As the “leader of the free world”, how would internal strife send a message to the rest of the globe? Especially when 21st century life has been marked by the large scale: a global pandemic, banks amid the late 2000s financial crisis being “too big to fail.” Could capitalism itself be affected—and improved upon--on such a grand scope? Redefining a system and adding change to it has its risks; the larger a social system becomes, the more stability becomes expected. Like jurisdictions for politicians, capitalism depends on places and geography. As big and small systems respectively depend on a sense of family—nationalism for millions of countrymen to mobilize citizens toward macroeconomic goals, communalism for microeconomies like a kibbutz. For the former, the media is critical for this bond to work. Yet were pandemics foreseen and debated during press coverage in the Western democracies, during the 2018 American congressional and 2019 European parliamentary races? Such is the flaw of “stable” capitalist society as it is now and a lack of vision. 

      *    *    * 

The complex modern world is not just beyond the grasp of being understood on an economic basis—it is confounding them politically as well. Modernity in action consists of a proliferation of needs to meet--as well as a proliferation of sophistication behind all of it. One person’s needs, or interests, hook up with that of another; particularly those interests that exist on a sub-level and as result, can be self-serving. For instance, Senator Krysten Sinema, could nominally justify supporting voting rights legislation, while behaving in a way that indirectly allows the filibuster to benefit other preferred colleagues in the Senate, to this dismay of those supporters in the former category. As well, the pursuit of needs and interests could be simply veiled as workers using back door connections in not just legislative politics, but office politics. How to get such divergent cliques to, for the benefit of the common good, to each have their eye on the ball? Make that ball a more concrete ideal. In contrast to American values that function more as abstractions—trying to get judges to agree on what a “right to privacy” is--that turn illusionary, and thus stands less the test of time.

Society under such “abstractions” in 2020 was not so good, so 2021 had pressure to make up for it. But high inflation and supply chain problems arising at the year’s end were not the holiday cheer to end things in style. These issues do have a common denominator, a source from where the problem may stem from: the bold exercise of freedom. This manifested in consumers emancipated to demand more following stingy pandemic days. While at the same time, truck drivers hampered the supply and distribution of goods by quitting their jobs for a more promising career. This contemporary era of many participants in a process-- “mass economics”--is brought together by people acting in their own self-interests. Yet what central authority whatsoever is there when the invisible hand has more DCSers involved? Such was the case in the financial crisis at the turn of the 2010s, when specialization of the industry changed how loans were repaid: now banks made money from the transaction itself. 

New players were involved to handle these loans, now converted into mortgage-backed securities, thus necessitating more people getting their piece of the pie. As well, a need for responsibility for all of those players involved—including the house flippers who instead approached homes like ATMs, and drove up the prices into bubble levels. Even though this Great Recession volatility eased up, similar implications of “mass economics” were apparent in the present-day inflation crisis. The prevalence of rising prices was contagious, as when one firm raises prices, other businesses may follow suit. To offset what was seen to be instigating corporate greed, introducing stimulus checks were an initiative to democratize matters. Yet, as a result, might have been that the way the checks were spent may have increased the money supply. 

Could all these partakers in “mass economics”, who can’t get their act firmly together, come together and confess that we are all just children of God? Yet religious fervor, as a widespread global trend, is not the hot commodity as it once was; from the Enlightenment onwards, nationalism replaced Christianity as the faith for many Europeans. Like nation-states asserting their interests on a large scale persist, private citizens on a small level pursuing their interests rolls on. Now if a commoner in the past did not have God as the ultimate goal, the local leadership could pick out some calamity like a famine, and scapegoat the malcontent for allowing that divine-bestowed hardship. Instead, today’s humanist spirit has made it that the individual is the end worth serving. Thus, organized monotheism couldn’t adapt so much to the modern era. 

Yet can it be made sure that ordinary people--the drivers of the Anthropocene era--will be able to do so? Consider an answer to that with the proposition that individualism should deal less with “man” with an “a”, and more on men in plural, spelled with an “e”. For this notion of “man” gets hampered when one individual is stuck in his or her own uncertain situation, which gets filled in by an array of empowered DCSers. Just as a reference to this, a large-scale example would be the forces of the Arab Winter exploiting the void left open by actors of the Arab Spring. In other, similar cases of a vacuum being infused in politics and business, the masses just can overwhelm what that mere, lone individualist thinks. 

      *    *    * 

Uncertainty though, is less celebrated than facts; it can also be said that facts are greater than opinions. Consider, though, how facts hold up against laws. As laws come from agreements: a leader has ideas, others carry them out. Yet to implement this, agreements can only become possible when all involved share the same opinion. This notion is backed up by the Oxford Dictionary, defining “agree”, as having “the same opinion about something.” Democracy isn’t so fixated on the facts of the majority. Rather, it is geared towards the opinions of the majority. And such sentiments march on: economic systems today depend on the customer always being right. This sets up the Anthropocene as the today’s supreme law of the land; the era of humans in effect means the era of opinions. 

Behold such opinions put into action, the power of voluntary belief. Even if that is found in just one person—the lone Tank Man seized the attention of a global audience during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Yet, in a democratic era of being left to your own devices, look at the places it takes people. To those on the center and left of it, the riot at the U.S. Capitol displayed a contempt of hitherto electoral outcomes that were accepted fair and square. Yet the storming of the legislature wasn’t like, in foreign coups, some form of Delta Force that spearheaded it; rather, it carried out by willing, private citizens. The focus may not be the Congress itself and political institutions as a whole. Rather, with democracy drawing in diverse peoples to resolve the needs of a modernizing economy, it is more judicious to make it right when a participant in all this suffers a setback and possible subsequent humiliation. What happens when people are free to engage in action that carries consequences? These victims can rally around whatever ideological remedy, now proliferated in DCS’ marketplace of ideas.

Democracies and dictatorships differ in each other’s goals. But, to achieve their aims, the free world is akin to authoritarian societies in needing to enlist its population. Thanks to its own economic successes, DCS depends on more needing hands on deck. In turn, these new peoples are bestowed rights and privileges. Given the obvious transfers of power in democracies, some rights can hang in the balance. Established leaders at the top anticipate this, and create, for challengers, barriers to entry. One example of this entrenchment are the fundraising advantages that incumbents enjoy. Still in these political contests, participants--and those pressuring them—are united in seeking political gain. Pursuing “gain” could be also anyone in DCS—including experts and specialists. What system could societally cover this whole web? Democracy, as it stands, may not be getting all these warring parties on the same page. Maybe expecting change through sheer voting isn’t working; it can get redundant when each election, even after 2020, becomes “the most important one in our lifetime.” Maybe it’s more necessary to change the one practicing “democracy”: the democrat. That is, by intellectually conditioning each person involved in the political system to more noble ends. 

      *    *    * 

Democracy somehow has to get its citizens involved. It depends on its subjects sharing the same goal: the seeking of a better life. Whether it’s conservatives thriving under less regulation, or liberals pleased with the safeguarding of “marriage equality”, seeking personal advantage is a notion that both sides of the table are in unison. This idea of private progress is personified on a mass scale by the European Union. Unlike other peoples around the globe united by a common language or history, member states identifying with the EU is made possible by the pursuit (similar to other points on “seeking gain” in this essay) of intrinsically advantageous notions of peace and prosperity. 

Was, for the EU and NATO, “advantageous” expansion towards Ukraine a Titanic heading in collision course with an iceberg? For democracy, whether be in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, overcoming the globe’s Putin bloc doesn’t mean pleasing the illiberal democrats of the world. Rather, it’s about the centrists getting out of the populists’ way--leaving the MAGA, Fidesz, PiS, and National Rally people alone. That would leave the “End of History” proponents with a more enduring ideal: people will adhere to the supply and demand principle, forswear the abolishment of private property, and value high that of public opinion. That’s capitalistic democracy. Yet navigating such public sentiment involves media magnification that exposes the warts of one side--ammunition for that particular perspective’s rivals to use.  

Early in the twentieth century, it was indeterminate where fascism and communism would take Europe. In this young millennium, it is also uncertain where authoritarian populism--wherever it may be across the spectrum—will go. To seek a resolution, conventional approaches of determining who is right and who is wrong may not be pertinent. Beforehand, the 19th century Southern United States already knew its Northern counterparts were “right”: as result of industrialization, the Union states had a higher standard of living. Armed conflict materialized when the Southerners simply ran out of time to find an economic alternative to the metastasizing system of slavery. Similarly, the peoples in today’s United States are all-too familiar with democratic capitalism. Being dependent on that system in the 2020s, to put reasonably priced gasoline into cars and affordable food on dinner tables. In these crises, could there be another option to guide society for people now, before it’s too late?

Demographically speaking in the United States, the political culture is gravitating towards the left. But that doesn’t mean that political elections are heading in that direction—like an underdog in sports, the right can find a way to win. And to “win” in a voting race is result in yet another loss that tears away at the social fabric. Even if wounds were to heal from the 2024 election, developments away from the ballot box can still be flashpoints. Such was the case by the Supreme Court when its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Bringing people together from leadership at the top was the spirit at the 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address. Yet finding universal truths in human nature, no matter how and where the discovery was made, is way for one to go beyond democracy and whatever stems from it. The best way to confront conflict? Preempt it with the tool that is knowledge and its ensuing victory that is self-confidence.

                                                                                                      2021

                                                It's the Stupid Economy: The Market Gets a Transformative Hold on its Subjects

New eras bring on new challenges in democratic capitalist society (DCS). And as the world’s lone superpower, the United States faces tests especially made complex for the most advanced of nations. Subsequently, its people at differing levels of the social hierarchy are feeling the brunt of these challenges. This commentary looks at workers at the bottom of the pyramid get caught in labor discontent, in part resulting in today’s “Great Resignation” phenonium.  Moreover, the leadership at the apex of the power structure must wrestle how its peace won abroad in the Twentieth “American Century” is reaping upstarts spurred by newly assertive peoples at home.

White collar disengagement

Thanks to an industrialized world that is both affected by and craving change, the services sector of the economy has rose to outpace its primary and secondary counterparts, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But this New Economy can play it less fairly than its raw materials and manufacturing cousins. The industries of the working class, that field saddled today with the connotations of the Rust Belt, actually is just in terms of assessing concrete progress. To show for it, consider a good from a factory. It is tangible; faults in physical labor are obvious to all those involved. Examples include tires formulated to blowout en mass, or an e coli outbreak resulting from a food processing plant. 

Yet for a service, it is something that’s more having its sole arbiter in a person’s head. With these tertiary jobs, it’s vaguer. Given that the services industry is based on knowledge, it thus founded on notions that exist in the pliable mind. This entails the customer or the client making decisions tied to a mood in real time. Case in point is a judge who comes to the courtroom haunted by a fight last night he had with his wife; in this context, the jurist, in forming his own opinion, has such other, psychologically malleable factors from even outside his profession.

It may be not so unironic that the rise of the tertiary industry is also the rise of the post-truth world. Is there a leader to intervene in such a “fake news” realm? Perhaps such a respected authority is harder to be recognized. That may be reflected by leaderless AI taking charge: DCS has created an economy so complex to be beyond the fathoming of individual people to decide on. Would such robots be needed in the 1700s? No use for driverless cars; AI have run out of tasks to do beyond a cotton gin. Yet today’s “tasks” obviously can’t be all dismissed. As it is a given for professionals to provide food, administer health care, build homes—plus someone has empower them with the energy and the technology to all this. Yet what preceded this wage-earner world had a upside. In closing the door on the forager era, civilization substituted the code of wildlife predators for government-enforced laws and society-induced norms. These were necessary to make humans more physically safe, but at a cost of leaving them more psychologically submissive?

      *    *    *  

So as modernity grows, the exchange of goods and services will leave behind intimate relationships and descend more towards impersonal commerce. The flip side of the economy strengthening—and the Delta variant stage of the coronavirus has not overturned forecasts of an early 2020s recovery--is that the work experience become more bureaucratic; more jobs created by politicians is more TPS reports for the rank-and-file to encounter. Will this help alleviate the fact, that according to a Gallup poll, that 70% of American employees are disengaged at their job? And this sentiment has just been manifesting in what has been coined as the “Great Resignation”: workers who, while being flexibly home during the COVID-19 pandemic, developed new expectations that challenged existing norms upon returning to the workplace in 2021. Raw statistics indicated that a record 4 million people quit their jobs in April alone, according to the Labor Department. The modern economy, now unrivaled by a Soviet-style model in the 21st century, extends its reach into domestic life; work-life balance becomes more of a trend rather than an obscurity. 

This outcome may not have been economically intended all along. For what kid says, “I’m going to work in finance when I grow up?” Be employed in HR? Aspire to make a living as a hedge fund manager? Entering these careers wouldn’t come about sheerly by free will. Instead of freedom as the founding principle in DCS, necessity has the become the hallmark. It’s these combined needs of a self-asserted citizenry that can prevent one person—the individual that DCS is supposed to champion--from truly entering employment out of voluntary interest. Professional volition cannot be so much out of one’s own accord; the diversions like entertainment, exercise, and hobbies that workers escape into can so contrasting from the workplace reality. Thus, there is a polarization: a professional can be either trapped into a state of labor or indulge in a realm of recreation. For many, chances for a world in which both of those sphere overlap is bleak.

More entrenched as grim is poverty. Unlike bad retail bosses, it is not just a new problem--for all of history, virtually all of humanity has been poor. It's just the advent of modernity that industrialization could actually expunge destitution. Some offer a cause to these prosperity hopes coming short: a conspiracy of the rich preventing their wealth to be redistributed to the less fortunate. Karl Marx had this type of outlook, one yet that may be archaic in the light of millions of Chinese and Indians climbing out poverty through market capitalism than centralized socialism. Yet the division of labor that Marx took on may have a longer shelf life in neoliberal era. A vision where one could "hunt in the morning ... rear cattle in the evening ... criticize after dinner ...without becoming hunter, shepherd, or critic” is on where work done to gain respect and attention transcends the need to financially support oneself. (Source: “The German Ideology”) In this sense, what’s done voluntary and not money-motivated can prevail over being coerced by greed. While this dream has not come to past, the growth problems from democratic capitalism do nothing but just press on for the future.

The 2020s: At this historical point in time

So something has been irking for those on certain level of the social pyramid. At least across the board, they agree in saying collective good riddance to 2020. But with the 2020s as a decade--as a new millennium put into reality—things are just getting started. Striving throughout the tumultuous year brought out the broad call for life, liberty, and happiness ... for the fellow man under the yoke of COVID-19. Yet the future is more in narrow agents of socialization—family members, close friends, choice of media—than in a universal denominator such as “all men are created equal”. Even despite that, there’s little end to the trend that as DCS breaks down into niches and identity groups—own algorithmic Amazon product suggestions and podcasts—people will fall back on the old United States idea for inspiration. What else can everyone agree on, other than this 220+ year old entity?

That whole time period was not spared of change. Among ramifications came in World War II: peace may have been won abroad. But was it lost at home? To speak about the “peace” in American history prior to the war, going back all the way to colonial days, is to speak about white male Christians as a leadership elite. Yet to ensure victory against Germany and Japan—and consolidate it versus Russia—this clique had to bring in once-excluded groups for help. Comparing today to the 1930s, groups like African-Americans, women, same-sex couples, Hispanic immigrants were more marginalized, and on the outside looking in. Now they were partners to assist in running the economic war machine. Indeed, conflicts were won. From 1945 to 1989, the United States rose to superpower status. 

The United States’ beacon of DCS externally triumphed on the global stage—and also served as a neoliberal demonstration for the rest of the world’s peoples to ride coattails on. Yet internally, American society may have not assimilated all of its subjects for the commonweal’s serenity. Instead, civilian warfare, passing on from one post-World War II generation to the next: the crisis involving Rosa Parks moving to the uproar of Breonna Taylor. Following the battle of Roe vs. Wade came just the recent standoff over Texas’ six-week abortion policy. This is the new reality for the United States political fabric: was there a time when this wasn’t the case? It is through the very origins of America’s democratic founding of John Locke’s tabula rasa, that people born with clean slates; that people equally across the board are malleable into being better. Yet, for DCS today, is there a malleable end to all this discord? 

      *    *    *  

One constant, though, is a struggle for global pre-eminence. The last two superpowers in history were different--the Soviet Union is no more. And the United States won out. But both share the fact that they are founded on ideas--which masks a degree of reality. In theory, the USSR was a workers' state. Yet in practice, ethnic Russians wielded chief power. The United States was founded on ideals of freedom and opportunity. In the course of its recorded history, though, who benefited from those concepts the most? White Christian males. The figures align: Russians, in contemporary press reports, made of 52% of the USSR in 1979. Correspondingly, whites composed 60% of the USA’s population in 2020. How this “white privilege” is managed for societal good determines in part how that superpower comparison continues.

DCS, give or take, is relied on by the peoples of the new millennium. Not totalitarianism: Xi is not Mao and Putin is not Stalin. And credit to DCS, Kant's democratic peace theory has upheld its job. But a given threat to harmony today--for both free and authoritarian societies--is, for a particular action, the stakes in play. As prosperity rises for a people of the globe so do expectations. And added innovation to a socioeconomic system is at the same time added sophistication. What if, for a good or service, one small part was to risk being flown off? If that complex whole gets jeopardized, leaving modern unpredictability accompanying modern progress. Such was the reality posited in Time magazine, discussing in July 1987 of “the Cold War fading away”: if fighting shooting wars move to fighting over “ideas, values, and potency of economic systems”, what evolves next then? Is the End of History the beginning of AI? As humans stuck with disregarded ideas, pressured expectations from so much being societally wagered on, just resort to desperation.

                                                                                      
              *

And one to grow on

--"Our days might not be any longer, but they can sure be better."

--"The match ... fans, we gotta go to a break.  I have no idea what to say.  Stay with us."

2) Mixtape: Featured pre-2022 tweets

+ "Nationalism of the self" may be even more potent that the nationalism offered by Putin or Orbán.

It may take a small amount for a person stand up for themselves--to be motivated to beat out applicants for grad school, for example.

For a populist leader to stand up for oneself?

Must rally the media and the legislature.

And private self-assertion is more *fervid*. Social media enables indefatigable trolls, stans!

Oppositely, mass nationalism, once in power, gets watered down by bureaucracies.

See how 1920s Trotskyism got neutered to 1980s Brezhnevism.

+ Who are we? Easier to answer is "what" are we--what the body consists of. 

One made up of tissue, bones, and blood. 

But what about defining the mind?

"The mind has been a subject of debate for centuries." -- Good Therapy.

People get perplexed by my Kosovo model. 

Yet they haven't settled on *a one clear* definition of what a person's mental state is.

So why not use a metaphor to fill in this void?

+ Warfare used to have more manning up. Pitched battles similar to those between Saladin and Richard the Lionheart … would actually have participants agreeing to meet.

But by today, Arab guerrillas hit and then run. Western armies shoot cruise missiles from a thousand miles away.

That #AsCon can be applied to ordinary life: what you want is ... just, just so close? 

Then suddenly, a distance. As in:

"Shit, man, now it's all gone." -- Tyler

So that's what a complex, integrated world will do to you: elusiveness.

In return? Make a complex, integrated world of your own! 

Nurture a private VISION by organizing its diverse elements; avoid being a specialized scholar!

But vision is seen *dimly.*

"Mechanical Animals is aesthetically far less dark, but in concept, far more grim." -- Wiki

+ Marx once argued, "conditions determines consciousness." 

I would put it more as *maturity* determines this to be so.

And each maturity stage has ^its own #AsCon shades of grey^. A two year old is helpless. 

But the toddler also has the innocence a teenager grapples over.

Plus while an elder's health is waning, his wisdom isn't. 

Since there’s no ^right or wrong^ point in aging, it’s about channeling the most proper stage of development at the most calculating.

But what if you're stuck in certain stages? Can't a quick fix out of immaturity?

If caught in a childish state, you may not count on yourself here. Nor rely on onlookers who react by, "you make no sense".

The answer? Fall back on the DRIVING FORCE to things. Get the root cause, NOW you see where that misery is coming from.

And confidence to take on life!

+ Governments today have a stance to a potential problem: mind your own business, and we'll leave you alone. As I wrote on Oct 21 that does NOT always work in ruling your psychological Kosovo.

Times when you have to pre-empt the threat while it is a gathering storm!

But making that first move against KLA/NATO takes waking up after sleeping peacefully in happiness and comfort.

"He's beginning to believe." -- Morpheus

Planning to be resolute isn't easy like setting up your own smartphone reminder. Likewise, self-criticism may not spark.

Crack the #AsCon code of your issue *and thus you finally figure out* the initiative.

But in separating fact from fiction, there's a roadblock: the god complex's deception.

Tyler's lying, excuses, gaslighting!

As the god complex will CHEAT its way into feeling self-important!

+ Despite all the differences of the planet's inhabitants ... I think it's safe to say that survival is a trait we are all united on.

But the ever-volatile Matrix is BOUND to dabble in an incident of change.

And a possible side effect of that? For someone else, a love that's lost.

Survive against loss? Consider--metaphorically or literally--disappearing from this threat.

To better shield from KLA/NATO, such vanishing gets aspects of your life to merge under a one MUP/VJ command. 

Not in line with the "specialization" of DCS division of labor.

Chris

But in trying to escape from The Matrix, you may actually get tired of trying to escape from >your own demons<. 

Just don't dwell on THE grand problem, but rather, focus on the distinctive offshoots to that hardship. 

This way, a flea strategically disappearing outwits a dog!

+ The modernity we cope with… rose in the Balkan crisis. One that had real-life Albanian tragedies.

As economics tensed demographics--Kosovar Serbs went north for jobs.

...And Albanian birthrates up? They outnumber others.

Like global selfishness up... an uptick in complex problems outnumbering us.

Plus EACH PERSON has their own Battle of Kosovo moment in their past lives.

A personal equivalent of 1389, a personal episode influencing one today!

+ Does God Almighty answer your prayers? 

Testability could be very well at the mercy of local conditions--such as the economic situation you're in, effectiveness of the technology around you. 

Easier to feel God's grace, feel Christmas in an Ameurocan household more than in a residence in Donbass or Tigray.

The Lord is all-powerful. But He may not be all-efficient to bestow hope and luck to Earthly followers, boots on the ground style.

"Even harder to grasp is the staggering increase in the complexity of modern societies." 

-- David Christian

No choice but to live in the local. After all, that's how the #POYPS model came about: how to make encounters successful with everyone’s needs intact.

Yet what's worse than underestimating how unlike another's interests are?   

Doing the same with his/her *length of memory*.

+ Even if we walk as free citizens, science has yet to publish a proven way to break out of the prison that is biological death.

But there’s an edge to attain.

Rather than doing what's loved—do more what’s real.

Technology is a force multiplier to love, w/ famous entertainers as well as famous politicians w/ devotees (and detractors). 

Real to YOU, is less disputed, less sharable.

Yes, love and real coexist. 

But which one you get CLOSER TO depends on reactions from Kosovo battling.

+ So many have looked at the atrocity of George Floyd through the prism of race. 

But consider also the relevancy of gender.

The hard world of crime brings up *guys unleashed*: 

88.1% of police officers are men (FBI, 2014). And males make up of 93.1% BOP inmates.

If us dudes managed our primitive urges, then police brutality could be diffused. 

Cops could react to #AsCon situations with calmness. 

In turn, each citizen's proto-state wouldn't be infringed ... and thus avoid further confrontation over power lost from "injustice".

Men aim to exercise power over their environment. 

^I know these power struggles well^ as men battle to have the hottest girl, the flashiest gadget, the most alcohol consumed.

So beware of competition in DCS--for those unaware of the god complex game, more fallout to come.

+ If put to a test by a DCSer, WATCH OUT when he finds a fit/niche.

Productivity can come less from salary, stress, even in being passionate ... and more on doing what's natural.

No fit, diligence can be in vain. And not be in happiness.

Survival of the fittest, not the superior.