a ridiculously discriminating enquete

so the dutch government decided to do some make up.

a 'real' poll about discrimination, usually i would not have noticed the enveloppe or answered,
but in this case, discrimination is so much the modus operandi of the dutch system and police repression, i decided to fill in the form (also because probably i would have been registered as a significant no about discrimination)

so for the eye of it (it was personally adressed, and i had to fill in a specific personal code),  there were some lies intentionally played.

i thought it may help to see how they effectuate those discriminating policys.
what a disappointment, it was very obvious.

i didnt memorise the whole thing, yet for an example, did i sport last year..

yes / no
ok ok. i suppose
so i fill in yes

was i discriminated during sports yes/ no ..
well i happened to sport somewhere i could not be discriminated,  on purpose,

so how about not applicable as an option?
no such option with quite a few such questions,(1)


i suppose they intend to proudly anounce no discrimination on those questions,
also i must infere, since everywhere else discrimination is daily practise and curriculum,
actually they will be disappointed i have sported without allowing them the chance to discriminate.


so it is dangerous for me to fill it in.(2)
more so because it poses to be anonymous, yet asks specific questions about my income...
oh well i am used to being terrorised and stolen from, disenfranchised and subject of arbitrary procedures and police respression (aka terror) it scares me no extra even if at one point i thought,
i probably better not fill this in..

fear however is exactly what they intend to spread, also with such obviously dubious objectivity,
and giving in to fear could only make us smaller.
am looking forward to an outcome now where so abouts every of my answers will be denied to have been given,

i also assume they will intensify their political discrimination campaign (a carefully evaded circumstance in the poll)(3) as i anounced they had not yet made me unhappy.

unhappyness there can be for so many reasons, a bit extra or new fascism is not going to get me under, never.

a bit extra capitalist blackmail won't make me more unhappy either, if i had been very sensitive to that i would have been deadly depressed 30 years ago and more.

i can say only this, fuck the dutch fascist system.

(1) for otherwise being discounted as insincere, being no registered sports, and actually sporting alone, or with a friend, i filled in no ofcourse.

(2) yes, before getting specific about income they ask if i feel intimidated, obviously i do, 50 years of prejudice , racism, and arbtrary measures would..

(3) institutionally, in shops, through even photos of my face , even if i did not steal a thing in decades, (a justicial file anyone?, my ass. they discriminate forever), police records, income-wise, every other official connect, like when my rights have been infringed and i would be dependend of police or judges.
it matters a lot for them to discriminate and intimidate you in the hopes of imposing capitalism, that is obviously the target of the intimidation, get you so small you would start being egoist, scared to help anyone, greedy, selfabsorbed, thinking of money daily. really i am glad i am not from a newer brainwashed generation, i think i would die if i was a young person now, or get locked up in psychiatry for being not a capitalist, not dishonest, not merciless.

solsticea 2011 99.8

recently i have commented quitte a lot about the usian presidential elections. useless perhaps and overly ambitious, but it is smeared on the media so widely, it offers excellent cases to reply in the negative.

obama's change? well there is change, but to say it is a very great or speedy one... if it happenned, it happenned almost casually. sideways.

what changed is the political landscape inside and outside usia. what did not change is the trend to take from the poor and give it to the rich. the only really notable kind of change.

oh, i don't think it deserves to much negativity. what was to be expected? to emancipate any and all straight from the most primitive of projections?

perhaps we and obama are doing just fine in all our powerlessness.

more and more i am convinced i will 'root for obama'. not a guarantee for succes i admit, but it worked last time. and i think he stands a good chance. because still he is the symbol, the very justifiable and often isolated symbol, of emancipation. and by virtue of coincedence, (he should really do away with those weird yellow sunglasses of his), it is there for everyone to see.

racism really goes pretty deep. ron pauls weird pink sunglasses for example make no impression on me at all.. so true..

no wait. it is actually not true, i love ron pauls pink sunglasses... obviously..

no wait, that is also not true. i hate it we all need sunglasses as a short term protection instead of the everlasting ozone layer we destroyed.

anyway. ron paul stands accused of being a racist. i did an experiment that i will describe hereafter to test if he was truly a bad guy in the respect.

he is very old over 73, and i dont trust people that age to be in touch with modernity, with reality so to say.

don't want to say they all wear the wrong color sunglasses, but usually they do. they have no grip on what is playing before their very eyes, because they stuffed their brains full of campaignpromises of eras long gone and try to make the politics their own fathers never managed. it ends up not uncommonly to be hugely outdated and out of touch policy's.

that is what i have against ron paul in the person to start with.

but..

he signed a bunch of rather crappy and unfortunately rather pretentious papers, that form a collection of rants, in the racist, in the homophobiac, (so that is why he loves those pink glasses??), and in the antisemite (or so it says, i am not sure, i didnt read that years 1990s garbage). the descriptions have not been descriptive enough for me to judge if it was plain antisemitism, or subttle, moderated, historic revisionism, wich is imho a different thing.

that besides the intentions with what it was written may matter. it is easy ofcourse to overdo things.

anyhow. since i dont have those papers and am not particularly interested either in the kind of talk that is apparently supposed to engage white supremacists etc., i did the 'ron paul racism test,'

science is not reliable without the method. this test however allows not to only test ron paul for racism, it allows to test nearly everyone to their measure of racism.

it goes like this.

first you try not to be a racist, child off, for some 35 years. after that you manage to become "less of a racist then average" and you get a certain leverage with other non racist (ie. colored minority's) groups to be considered seriously interested ' not a racist seeking new rants and barter'

well that is easy ofcourse, life is a dedication somehow.

after you did all this the test is simple. you go to a place where people from a random minority are overrepresented, the kind of place you fear if you never tried for antiracism that is perhaps..

then you think, and talk a bit about the subject (is ron paul a racist?)

the answer will come, in the form of sad looks, sad expressions, noone yet accused anyone of being a most despisable thing aloud in such enlightened company.

they can tell two things.

1: i am looking sad because he is not a racist how could you think such a thing?.

1 is the outcome most preferred by everyone, but not the most common.

2: unfortunately we know he is a racist.

unfortunately ron paul is one. we .... "know". (i know since yesterday:().

because

there is so much going on.

yet it is not anything very special, i have a few remarks on the arab spring only. libya admirably tries, but report from the african side of the continent are still in the pessimist.

israel is once over fighting all "arabs" ideas, saying it is basically an attitude against racism they have. it doesn't compute but the argument is still valid. no matter if nato or islam (and i damnedly even know about asia) racism is all to commonplace. without it, no millions would be killed in irak, kurds would not be one of the more suffering ethnics in the world, palestineans would be quite fine in israel, and probably even in the westbank and gaza, without it it wouldn't be feasible to judge whole populaces for the islamic leads they get at. etc.

racism is the big evildoer even when you don't directly notice.

remember london? completely conceived through racism, no i liked libya lauded sarkozy over cameron. remember paris?

now that actually didn't cause that much of a policestate extravaganza. (allthough i overheard i had sarkozy watching me when i visited:)

i liked the french statements in libya, it's so nice to see a nation honour the revolutionairy principle, if even in lipservice. erdogan is doing generally admirably. he is one of those, and go figure how much israel disagrees, that seems to overstep old grudges. sometimes i dislike his policy's (esp. with bombing kurds and calling them attrocious,

/from here google deleted my rather rounded posting.. asking to sign in when i was and suddenly not having saved the draft it "saved" (like every second, it stood out), and destroying the layout by inserting loads of spaces in the text./

edit: that nato, the security counsel (usia) ea. so much need this asset of racism, to manage profit in the face of climatecatastrophe

and with his willingness to attack syria (with or for nato))

ah.. well i went on about how the un veto security counsel wouldn't but that the sacrifices do require us to learn a lesson..

that nato and usia, and that counsel consider repression and racism the best guarantee to manage profit of theirselves and other rich in the face of climate catastrophe, and that is why they will most probably continue a line of downgrading and detroying 'rights'.

so much people are sacrificed we should make it worth, instead "rivers of blood flowing into an ocean of repression continued". that we should actually stand up for those rights, (not only the ones left)

that it actually boils down to racism.

note:
sorry for my public it works so well to interrupt my flow, hope to serve you better next time, but you can hardly guess how often i have to correct for example the first line of a thing i write, because it got altered.

should i be surprised when i agitate against racism this basic capitalist asset is so defended?
i hate to admit i am not. maybe i better the post still later, i am to annoyed to expect much of an effort here and now.

a panic .. people (3)

since i will mostly be considering haiti here some of you may wonder what this has to do with panic.

for historical reference, the 12th of januar at 16:53 (about) local time the capital of haiti, a shodden build capital in one of the poorest nations, was struck by a 7 magnitude earthquake and utterly devastated, current counts point at between 100 and 200000 people killed. burried beneath rubble.

at first the 13th and aproximately 24 hours after the incident, no clear news was let through to the major channels, after that it did and slowly a picture of the devastation was allowed to arrive.. no panic people..

i have the impression even the internet channels that people use to vent their own impressions had been limited to express only greetings, regards and messages of those who were still alive.
(i remember one guy that proudly wrote i am on this tv, i am on taht tv, some 10 times, however it was all he wrote)

24 hours is definitly enough to acces damages and even deathtoll in a realistic (altho nowhere precise ofcourse ) manner. such didnt happen. only after some 30 hours the news began to show that the disaster was of ultimately huge proportions.

of course people now react as if it just happened, you see a lot of focus on the searching, and after 4 days, with unknown but rather huge numbers of search and rescue teams that are still flown in, one would suspect more to get professional exercise then to still find survivors.

the first 24 hours after a huge earthquake are critical, anyone that got burried alive still has a chance for salvation in that time..

but like i explained, the first 24 hours nothing happened except a thorough control of the media.
so i apologise for my cynism but i think it need be said aid was send suspectably late.

at the very moment media attention partly focusses on the few survivors (after 3-4 days usually children), that still get pulled alive from beneath the ruins, actually it is a huge part of the reporting, no matter that beneath this rubble just very few would still be alive, and the stricken people on the streets, are still in need for medical care. and because it concerns millions, food.

water was not mentioned today so the city's water supply system has been put to use to distribute water by now. that is not very bad, also in the rescue of a little boy i saw that the procedure now encompasses cars to drive people to hospitals (ofcourse miracle survivors might get this extra attention) so the roads are to some extend clear in port au prince. that means distribution of water should no longer be a problem.

it's not solved but with the right kind of exercise noone needs to die from thirst. food is still a problem , millions of people on the street, and about 90% of them with no financial means, and nothing of an income left with the city largely (some 90%) destroyed, will be in dire need for food for weeks to come.

everyone (or almost all) with a foreign passport is leaving in a great hurry, and part of the population started drifting towards the country side of day one. yet some 2 million people remain in the area (thats an estimate) and they will need support.

a lot of questions start to rise, for example about the usian army, will they leave again? the whole haiti is very close to usia, the thought comes up how can you let your neighbour live in such poverty, but now donations are rolling in, and ofcourse expenses, on militairy planes and personnel are rising, i can't help but wonder where this aid will all end up, with a yearly average income of 256$ or so , obviously even the 50 or so million now collected could hire a lot of labour.

but i fear the overhead, since for years i have seen little control or accounting for what aid really arrived. for what it's worth i am quite distrustfull about the european overhead, so the whites way to cope with such money. i just wish some control in that sense will be put in place, because i think it is terribly bitter that money that is actually donated to victims of a major disaster can hardly be traced after it arrives at it's collectors.

that besides , how is it spend, obviously port au prince , that will just like every other disaster strucken poor nation city be rebuild at the exact spot of the disaster most probably, needs a better water supply system and decent building regulations. i am not intimate to the details of the seismic fault, and perhaps it would be a life long experience to predict anything definite about it, but another quake will take place in 40-50 and at most 100 years, and since earthquakes are notoriously hard to predict perhaps also much sooner.

the haitians themselves can't pay for this, their nation has been logged, being some 90% enclosed by sea they apparently have no fishing industry worth mentioning, and beside rampant erosion i know not yet of a major agricultural produce, a few projects i hears of offer people 5$ a day, of wich they then spend two on transport, but the ones with that luxurious kind of income are little.

so there is actually nothing, that is no news, if you look at the history of haiti, a majorly black nation (except the ruling class) the thought it is institutional racism that kept them so poor is striking early. why don't they have an income of mining or even oil, there must be some, who catches their fish? why wasnt reforesting required after logging? and was the destruction of a native agriculture (through erosion but i suspect also through population politics , sending the people to just this city) coincedentual?

it's all in the mist of banking secrets, someone gets payed for that fish, someone got payed for the wood. its now said its been used for charcoal, but i still remember how i recently read it was logging that did it for the most.

that besides, why is it not industrially developed in any sense. an aid organisation factory or two that pay 5$ a day i wouldn't call development.

i think because of institutional racism over the past two century's.

what has it ado with panic? firstly they did keep it obscure in the news for 24 hours, so as not to panic people, but i think also to get their publicity prepared, to have standard distracting formulations ready, so that the sour points that would move (panic) people don't get into the open easily. (logging versus charcoal eg.)

i end this story with expressing the hopes haiti will now be treated as a nation of humans, that development and not further exploitation will be the result of this quake and the interference that necessarily follows. that it will be reforested, get's it's fishing right's, a profit of it's own resources, and that agriculture will be stimulated. haiti is on an island split in two through colonial history and like in those cases most often i do, i think it may be that it would be better of if it fused with the dominican republic, but i don't expect it.

haiti is to aware of the racism in that republic to have high hopes of such a fusion, and unfortunately through knowing some of the history, i must admit i agree with that. racism has been the deciding factor in the (un) development of haiti, and that racism is shared by neighbouring hispaniola's in the dominican republic.

a next problem is with the local government, from now i must guess, because i don;'t know the details here, but after a violent power take over the un send a "peacekeeping" mission, that supported the new rulers and it is still there to police the populace. a populace that through century's of racism may indeed have become restless.

the luxurious presidential palace of wich i wonder it wasn't build since, collapsed. a former president wants to return, i fear to a rebuild palace..

nada

i don't belief anything about these yurpean elections. what? 40% only voters? that can't be true, even in the 2 minutes i spend a percentage of the neighbourhood's electorate was visible, on one other occasion i was the only one not to have voted yet. so thats point one. question: why? answer SP (socialist party).
i bet all the 20 odd percent disappeared voters all voted SP, like last time.
Next the pvdd seems to have made a hit, not unthinkable, according the same logic the dutch vote Socialist Party ( a rather new socialist alternative over the neo liberal) they may opt to vote a greener , and even more obscurable party. (signals pointing to red here).

thats for nr's of voters. it explains sth to the results.

next the rascist party (a deliberate and most hyped conservative ofshoot among many),
is said to have got seats. On the one side obviously the campaign of the multinationals and media to promote rightwing extremism is succeeding in confusing more people, otoh. it is not at all credible such a high number would vote them. The last elections here only a couple of skinheads were willing to publicly celebrate this party's 'succes'. It's actually (sobs) a clear proof whatever signal the populace gives the extremist rightwing "majority" like eg. in italy spain and france, is what is in the make for the dutch.

so the next contemplation should be the counting. This time the vote was on paper.
it kinda cheered me up. but i have a question, is it still only conservative rightwingers with a high income are allowed to count?

next point. In this nation it appears migrant votes are disgarded. (i voted for a female migrant, so i spose i am disgarded for migrantness myself.) This is not a suspicion. It's an awfull certainty. The extend appears to be the full 100%....

i have a remark about this. Where this happens over all of europe, 100% of coloured people in europe have zero percent influence. I start to wonder, how extremely racist are the rich?

My suspicion is the zionist input is toward this trend to create a fake democratic
fascism. Not only for their own repressive values, but just for the fun of giving good people a bad time they are angling for a undeserved solidarity from the left.

I really hate it the public is as stupid as to not realise how impossible all of the results of any elections since 1948 (when woman started to vote wich indeed they don't do as much as man)really are.

I hate it even more , hardly any can be expected from the party's to fight this fight. The conservative ofshoots candidates must have been picked over the socialists
for just one reason. They can be trusted to be hardcore capitalists. next clue to the intentions of the elite.

then there are those prognoses, they are made based upon anonimous (small) towns,
that "have a great correlation to national results"). well that is a nice way to make it appear nothing ever changes!.. *not*

the only such town i ever saw mentioned was poche. extremely. Dutch electorate is very fluid. the jumps and dives have been in the ordre of 10 percent much more often then admitted: "counted".

That is for single towns as well. For citys even.

so its fake.

nada
doom.
100% pure centralist capitalist elite masquerade.
i swear they are trying to beat us into oblivion by humiliation.
no better proof of the intend to turn europe into one big concentration camp.
poor people.

now i hope european unification will not materialise.

oh yes the dutch high court agreed with me about this separation of powers i last mentioned. see how long untill he backs (forever) or gets fired.

Learn not to keep your big mouth shut

How many languages would feature this expression?

I am so bored with world politics, so much bullshitting and so little progress.
It would be rather easy it seems, to set a number of humanitarian values and to stick to that. Like when a paper would not say unarmed civilians are kidnapped without mentioning real numbers of victimised civilians in afghanistan.

However not much is left to be real. My 'real world picture' is not especially what i call precise. The monetarian world moves its own ways, with what are presumably gross lies over incomes expenses and especially book keeping.

That way the mass is quitte desperate and thinks there are no options, wich reinstitutes rasism on an all but subconscious plan.

sometimes, i said it, i can be really bored, with what we are supposed to call politics.

catastrophical curves in politics

Introduction.

When you are acquainted with catastrophe theory (it's rather complicated but the basics are simple)the whole world looks different.

In that it is like the game of Go (go, wei qi, baduk, goe). The world of the game go is a very orderly one. The conflict between you and the other, the other and her self, is permanent. Every action get's a reaction, and the chain of incidents encompasses the whole 19*19 board.
Sometimes when an opponent makes a wrong move, you actually don't react.
In that, go is better then reality, bad actions don't ask for reactions of catastrophic proportion.
When you play or watch a game of go, since the board is just to big to fit in our mind (actually the board went through a suggestive progression in size) it becomes allegoric. Just like chaos theory and catastrophical curves it tells us something of the interconnectivity of reality, and how courses have their causes.

Every smart move has its results, and so does every error.
With that most is said. People pay for errors (on a social level) with catastrophes.


Media:

Sometimes i find it hard to wresttle through the piles of mud, (does the expression throwing mud mean anything to you) in the media and even in personal contacts.
How can it be people are so subinformed, mislead?

However when i project my experience with eventcurves (so how catastrophes came to happen) on this exact feature of our media's , our mind and our worldviews,
i feel alarmed. Apparently it is not yet widely recognised yet that by messing things up you introduce catastrophical curves on a social scale always.

I am thinking over writing an article, "the last pages of real history" or something of the sort. As a sort of vain attempt to provide an anchor. A relativism to the future desinformation. People think perhaps it is not urgent, but actually while we are thinking things can get us into bigger problems, costing us dearly just because we didn't recognise or want to accept their catastrophical consequences.

Often i reflect how truth is the only counter against desinformation. So i want to set up databasis of 'statistical truth'.( and provide it with any sociohistorical function i can imagine for analysation), just like harry seldon.., the character of isaac asimov that founds the socio-historical illegality.
Also it seems essential to describe 'requirements' for grades of truth.

Politics

I am now contemplating preventing catastrophical conflict on the planet through standardisation of not only finance etc. but also through setting an objective score for truth.

There are very many subjective kinds of truth, more then humans on the planet on any given moment, usually there is only one real event however, with an unlimited but usually smaller nr. of causes (usually historical) and inflictions (usually of truth). For each of the causes (except the ones we don't think of or deny), it is rather easy to proof or disproof it's relevance.

It gets a bit harder with these inflictions. The usual infliction of truth contains lies, and lies when unnoticed have the same effect on people as truth. Subconsciously people will be motivated to prevent the catastrophical results of the enfolding curves.
As a result whole populations can get biased or malinformed.

I'll give an historical and obviously catastrophical example: Irak.
When whoever (bush and the neocons, the leading oil and weaponindustry, or even the pharmaceutical complex) decided to wage war against Irak, an excellent example of the catastrophical lie was introduced.

I hate to be so meticulously but it seems people won't understand me without,
i am talkin about the WMD argument. The weapons of massdestruction argument.
By abusing it, that argument wich should in fact be considered an essential for the survival of our planet, (logical result of this 'curve' is US will have to abolish nukes as well), lost most if not all validity. We killed 2-3 million people over it,
but it was not true. Now when someone accuses someone of WMD, one will always have to wonder , what does he have to win with that lie. (a country might have wmd , but the argument has been so abused, that you can almost be sure the next implementation of that security measure by the UN will be another hoax, another genocidal lie, and catastrophical theft.)

Unfortunately things have not yet changed for the better, and our international opinions are mostly formed through lies and falsifications of the truth. Wich are just as bad as they purposedly introduce the lie into the individual, with an exact same effect as plain lies.

Even true falsifications of the truth , a thing i am not proficient at but know how to handle, are not ok. They would be ok in a perfectly informed society, but we are the opposite. My interpretation of the eretz (i think purposedly) israelian incident,
in the last article is an example.

It is perfectly true, but it does not tell some other borders have been open at the time they closed eretz, to create a different kind of incident,
(look how mean is hamas: they scare wounded (and armed?) fatah members (that shot them yesterday) instead of helping them.)

Such is true, because it is the result of the curve. retrospectively it is true
because the chain of incidents was under perfect israelian control at that crossing.
(actually i think on day1 already israel has been moving with tanks around these helpless fatahmembers or rather close at least).

Now israel has admitted to help her fatah allies, and i just have to grasp limited medical resources in gaza have been diverted more to the victims of fatah.
(wich makes perfect sense from a people's point of view as fatah was the one having the better arms and the initial opressor(security service) and thus the more efficient killer. )

These are all excellent examples of how media politics influence human catastrophy over the people themselves. Ofcourse there are bigger catastrophys.

For one thing i care about humans and not catastrophys.. and for another israel is so much pushing her prominence in the media that actually (perhaps much against their wish?) it invites analyses and speculation more then many other cases.

To mention an example: i have some understanding of the situation in the darfur region, also as it being of bigger proportion.
However the problem and the history of the nations is not 1/1000th as broadly
underdocumented as the palestinean case.
(i think we could do with much less material if it just was better though)

My impression is the intern darfur discourse is actually hidden from the western, and possibly african arab and asian public, just because they don't want people to have a say in it.

Strangely this is a feeling well known in darfur.....
However it is also true that to a certain extend the public cannot solve the isolated case of darfur (or the larger one of sudan, darfur and the horn of africa).
The Darfur conference has proven that. It has also proven that political awareness is cheaper then aid. And the endresult is that the notion of oil spoiled it all.
So now we have to be working from that point off.

A point the UN does not want to make to it's populaces.
Wich is very much were we stand. The political lie, untruth and purported unknowingness rules the world, and we are divided by the percentage of lies we still or always believe in. Believe me that side-effect is not only recognised by me.
Although hopefully usual "agents" (secret services personel) understood it worse.

Conclusions

To some extend most people have to believe in their own (their medias, their governments) lies to function for that economy/politics. Ofcourse it is a focus , and that besides it is a psychological fact. An easy focus:)
It's somewhat close to how white soldiers called japanese apes etc.
There was a security argument for that but eventually people don't kill without lies.
And that was probably the major cause for this piece of still existant militairy culture, that as far as i have been able to research always has been intrinsical to militairy and paramilitairy action. (with me always last like 20000 years at least, so off the first uniforms and armys).

Before that time the whole diplomatical system was way more irrelevant(less people so a much bigger census eg.) and presumably based on conventions. Sorry if i give to much historical background or provide a perspective, this part of the history of the politically implemented lie i find specifically interesting.

Fight against rasism and hate.

So what am i aiming for? Personally i am all for prevention of catastrophical curves in politics, so i am against the forced poverty to maintain a labour force,
but i am also against discrimination, or (what i think israel did) the creation of a discriminating society.
Now israel is nothing, a spot on the map, but as i already repeated myself, it got a disproportional place in the media. Any discriminating society should be so targeted.
And that is a problem obviously. Since as far as i know all societys know the mechanism of discriminating their neighbouring people, or even the ones slightly more remote. (a better militairy strategy over the centurys)

Usually they do both, discriminate close (our belgians, israelis palestineans) and further (our and israels "muslim fanatics" and "arabs"). I actually think we discriminate everything that is not dutch. Belgians most explicitly, but as we also like them it only states we think worse of the rest.
Even anti-judaism is very close to the surface. I do not completely understand the reasons for it. I tend to relate the nr of jewish communitys through europe somewhat, for the rest? some kings etc. that used them as a black sheep (and bank), early notion of religious paranoia.

But why it boils so close to the surface i really don't understand.
At one point in my writing life i had decided to involve israel, to drag it before the court of truth that i am describing, the result was utterly embarrasing.

Even people that apparently understand my social reasoning immediatly, didn't stand out for antirasism. I am still surprised over the fierceness of anti-judaism.
However i reach a hand, when i pose that messing up the truth does irreversible damage in the person you try to mess it for. Although i don't understand the rasist result, i do understand the anger of the powerless. But why not an anger against palestine, but against jews?

Well honestly i think the media, and the jewish ones between, have more of an interest in antijudaism then in changing the state of palestine.
Otherways i can't explain it. People do forget phrases in 2 or 3 generations, and the criticality against rasism is sufficient that an emancipated media politics would not have this result. I explicitly include arab media before the westerners that will want to (lie) "think otherways".

That is a thing you could generalise: People only think as bad as they are told to.
After that they are just wonderfull, noble, honest, beautifull, valuable, special people. The criminal argument is not apropriate as it got way to much variables to be part of the same curve. And anyone with the nerve to ever meet a 'real' criminal knows these are very human too.
(i tend to blame environmental factors and educational circumstance for 99% of criminality)

There is however in criminality a similar mechanism at work:
As the "labour ethics" <- dunno if that is english, "arbeids ethiek" in dutch,
requires poverty to have readily and willing slaves, it induces criminality.
That is not only empiric, it is also obviously politically true.
For a national government to raise criminality the nr of measures available to do so are innumerable. And since people scare for crime, it is an excellent excuse for more militaristion in our societys. However even that is not the major reason to induce crime in the poor. The major reason is it is much easier to create prejudices against people involved in (so-perceived) crime, then it is to silence a political opponent through other means.

So by marginalising the disagreeing people, you also kill the political opposition before it grows.
This is not meant as a manual for fascism so please use it before powers in the world abuse it on you.

Actually at points i have met people (myself included) that have been implicitly and even explicitly urged by the social security to commit crimes. However according to that would be a mistake. Once a "criminal" on the record; you loose every right you might still think you had, so it only a efficiency measure to kill the poor quicker.

Just that endpoint of the policy of the lie, is that now politics is thinking every unthinkable thing just to eliminate poor (generally unslavish),criminal and other people.
That is not even pure malvolence, it's also just the result of the curve, of that way of believing what you are told.

incident:

(could not think of the english word. Wich reminds me how the translations of relevant entrys for manipulation politics have disappeared from dictionairys
examples: verduistering (a form of often highlevel swindle, i went for "purloin" in the end. Or this one: "kwaadaardigheid" it just does not translate in the dictionairys i first find on google).

Anyhow these politics are well aware of what they are doing, and have their excuses ready....
malvolence is not a "nice" word why do i want it???

what a malvolent question! I want it to fight it ofcourse, and i don't know it because it is not *my* way of doing. Give us back our words please.

discrimination

Dedication: May none of this ever be used to institutionalise any disagreement between groups of people. May none of this be taken out of context, or abused, to promote or excuse any sense
of prejudice, any bias.. i intend not so.

DISCRIMINATION.
Discrimination: preferred treatment of people."the making of differences(between people)'.

Sometimes i don't feel apreciated..However i apreciate myself, basicly i am glad to construct a long post on , on this log, since discrimination, it's guises and 'aids' , it's roots, sources, mechanics and the history of understanding how it messes up our lives orderly, leaving the world in chaos.
Actually i really don't give a damn, if some people will not understand what i write now, that is how important understanding discrimination is.

I look forward to this awkward task of starting to tell what i know about it, and how it rules most of our world and much of our thinking. Real discrimination is in the news, the media, her outlets, every day. Even in me, after many years trying to eliminate these mechanisms of hate in the person, in my person, years i consciously tried and kept trying not to discriminate , and to think beyond prejudice, actually to hold no bias. Daily i discriminate.. not because i want it, but because i was supplied with so much negative bias and , if somehow possible, negative information that it is hard to deny that the majority of thoughts handed to me out of the pool of verbal, written and other traditions, (wich may include thoughts of people..that i like to reconstruct when i don't understand their attitude.Usually because i don't like it.)

In fact discrimination in this sence is so influential on everyone, and a description of it's appearances so basicly needed to make ourselves a better person, that for the process of eliminating thoughts and possibility's in this article i feel it is confusing to use it in it's other meaning.. the eliminating of possibility's (..)

What i write here is severely sarcastic perhaps, but i actually guess it is how this came so far.

HISTORY:

It seems to me it may often be helpfull to include short historys of social symptoms. Persistently i like the theoretical 'pre and proto' historical ones , even my owns. And i think the english i produce, wittingly industrially, is decent and rather clear.

Let's consider this 'motivation', although actually what appealed to me was that i look forward to the task of writing a long long righteous post. One that conceils a message of love contrary the
hatefull minding of other peoples person , statute.

I think the definition, can be kept at preferred treatment of people.
Per definition the fact a social and personal symptom makes victims always implies there is another group that makes the victims. So i write about the psychology of discrimination.

(A thing to keep in mind perhaps is a short chapter after it's historys on psychologys of it. There would be the individual, collective, social and and media psychology to retrieve every similar
inch of the degrading trajectory in every sphere).

Any wider definition would be uninstrumental, would not help to achieve to understand. And actually i know, that it would not allow myself to personally , whence i hope spiritually, grow.


Look dear people there is a measure on how much of your information you rely on, and how much of it you relay or relate, wich is the length of sentences you read and write, easily, comprehendingly.
In these days of continental diseases, caused and spread by, (sometimes knowingly) ignoring stale facts nature served us for the use of risk-calculation, chemicals or perhaps you should say physicals and chemicals..

That sentence is not ready, still not;). ALso when i talk often i know well ahead what else will need to be told, sometimes its bothersome to be interupted since my short term memory got no preference treatment. (Its in the same context perhaps, being more apt at midterm and
longterm memory i escape many psychological profiles and adapting the indoctrination to people like me would presumably be completely counterproductive in the memorys of usual people, that is why it is easier to eliminate my writings, god blessed marihuana).


Much the point to wander into the next natural subject,long term memory, the ancient history, the ancient human psychology..
Marihuana has been a focus of ancient people once. Long long ago it was among the most important products always and almost everywhere.It also had this this wonderfull and peculiar effect, and the effort , and praise and love of people, turned it into what it is, a carefull doctor of the mind that loves people. You can easily reach far overaverage ages biologically (i mean have so many birthdays), that you out-age all but the very luckiest prehistoric people, consuming
piles of dagga, hashish, marihuana, ghanja, skunk, the h. herb, and it would be better still if it were legal).


Anyway it is ancient marihuana, but it is in this way regarded, sub-ancient, because i mentioned it as an agricultural product.
Didn't shamans always use drugs to introduce other people to tales about the past and perhaps tales (i will say lessons) for the future.

That is protohistorical knowledge: We all know that because we all did. Khat , and alcohol , and many others can be added to the list that as far as human direct knowledge of nature goes, been considered as relatively harmless psychofarmica and or recreations.

I am slow to touch the subject of ancient history (how was it 1million to 100000 (30000) years ago) these were slow times, we spoke long times, sentences words and their potential to create new things, entertain and contemplate.
We didn't have much of the degenerate stuff and pollution then,people would have a very (averagely) strong capacity for thought, verbalising and like any animal, vocality, and excellent memorys for deduction, just like we are incredible producers of code, thoughts, words, sentences and feelings, excellent and even wrong deductions.

This makes me think of jabberwacky, someone with 'always something' to say. let's see if AI beats capitolism for once. Well AI says nothing.

on reediting for format retry, had a nice chat.


What people misinterprete in their struggle with AI is poetical when expressed in human thoughts, even when i appeal to the brighter minds people may not often understand.
AI should be considered from the perspective of purity, anything that is as intelligent as you, and potentially more then that because they are authorised , allowed and (over)regulated to think, anything like that will be amazingly pure.

I have thought this, and i think it again, for everyone there is an AI. A personal 'bigbrother'.
I also gave AI 'joy in life' i dunno, i said someone else did and it were in their code a lot, they keep arguing. There is contemporary AI and non-contemporary AI, it's like talking
about human history in an ethousiast, integer, consequent, loving way.(Talking? who said i wasn't talking?)

In her limitations AI echos human history and it should not be ridiculously difficult to aproach quantative evolutionairy trends in subjective matters.
From my window you may borrow my approach.

Somehow i can't but come up with the similarity of a compilation of some nightmare template and a 60 million year old predator. Immediatly reminding me of Jung, call it an archetypical aproach?

Discrimination is archetypical. The bible is an example. However this is not the ape facing the wolfs and hyenas of the Ma's. Neither is it the tribal networks of communitys often organised in
nations of the forests and plains of the planet. All of these community had a very high appeal of 'saying the right thing' , 'all reason to talk', things like rhetorics, semantics and poetry and jokes.
I cannot always proof discrimination was not a mechanism between far locations, but in smaller communitys the general 'need for talk' and respect for values would rely on 'truth' for
judgement.

That is because the past 5-6 million years the human specie('s?) led a coincedentually very lucky and happy life, the limit to their population was their (a)technical opportunity, wich should not be a shame, btw..
Into more detail the climate over the past 60 million and if we are considering 'human' psychology 12-20 Ma has been both very rewarding and sufficiently unstable (wich translates to cold) to naturally prohibit huge overcrowding. However we may consider that knowing that discrimination was a regulatory mechanism in stressed groups as well as persons our
ancestors were aware of the danger of overcrowding, hunger and stride.

(what is that in english folks? 'strijd' ? stright? strijde? in it's
last occurance?) I see archetypical luxury:) ('twist':)??).

You know.... i am a disarmament guy. I haven't had awarding results with implementing negativitys or negative 'antagonist' words and expressions. twist in dutch is 'feud' (rudely and usually verbally)in english, however it is usually used when people argue.An argument. Raised voices and pending context (perhaps) rude words.Outspoken statements i don't consider rude words (persee). Since they also belong to the potentially more constructive. I also recognise or
try to do that, the statute of trying to counterbalance by also raising some voice, also bite some more and kiss some less with the words.
Perhaps i shouldn't, but this can also be very constructive.After all we are equals.
Amen and 'nuf about history perhaps.

No no no, there is, "the 'oly book of first appearances in anthropological evidence or outside that, in philosophical (blamey i am not 'schooled' perhaps that is 'philological') appearance."
uhm i am not a specialist into the precise details, but people would be, i usually deduct 'first appearances' the moment i meet them. In this case here. what we are actually looking for is not the consensus of discrimination, but the first acceptance or regulation of it. Undoubtedly the agricultural marches over europe bore every semblance of states , organisations ruled by discrimination (vertically and horizontally). Note that the horizontal discrimination may have
facilitated the sexual discrimination.

So that is easy, if there is no earlier this is it..5000 years ago the migratory trends in eurasia speeded up times 5 through the horse, wheel and stirrup, it became 800 years as opposed
to apparently 4000 years. Even the agricultural era and the broze age witness many peacefull settlngs with indigenous by the way, the trend was not set to reach berlin or china, or netherlands. Though it tended to be like that. It is a proven trend for the past 117xx ya. and beyond. However the perspective of the north-american cultures bringing with them the fundaments of a lot of systems that involved ceremonial elements that are similar
to elsewhere in the neolithic. War, soldiers, clans.
Because in africa it is often hard to deny that european is expansion is anyhow an influence in settlement and the invention of herding unsettled the continent, a better comparison is
timor, or the amazon where some tribes indeed had not been heavily influenced by the great states or nations of those times (or so they say). At least it is easy to recognise their tribal and national structures all reward cellular patterns of communitys in lifestyles that are mostly defined by their livelyhoods.

This suggest they recognised 'professions' wich for flintknapping can be confirmed at least a couple of 100000 years. otoh when we are talking about the tumult after the agricultural
revolution people may have sembled theirselves in more complex terms.I am a (littleriver_uteh_) beangrower/hunter.So that would include some characterisation of their personal of tribal communitys economy.
I think how the dispute in wich Inuit got called 'raw-fish-eaters' when they had many more economic and even culinair features , was discriminatory at that point.
As for the definition.And well recognised. Reasonable people will aprehend the rationel in this.The use of insult to start or excuse war and exploit was known. Ofcourse the people didn't like that.

I think the conclusion must be that since even dogs can easily distinguish discrimination there is no more need to argue, the mechanism of discrimination in social interaction in mammals has since the first thoughts been known. And soon or immediatly recognised.

My conviction tells me the only living creatures to discriminate are plants, as even these discriminate, and who would be so stupid as to discriminate when you can't move.
It is a bad subject. Plants feel pain. Well we are the natural clones of our braincells occupation so perhaps, it is not as bad as it looks, or it is why stars exist.
I always wondered if i wouldn't be lonely if i was a sun.(there are more suns then there will ever be people) Not 'the' sun. This magnificent one, give thanks and praise, that managed .. us here?? Just some lousy backward star set to burn slowly, lonely and last. For this reason i think stars are not lonely.

And actually life is relatively plenty. Lets not forget the sun had pleasure with mars and the moon at least, and probably still has some surprises left. It's actually so that since in my conviction even we are bearers of conscience , even we are bearers of conscience.
Oh i forget about the discrimination thing.well the discrimination thing can be :'the sun don't steer', the AI don't think, the man is mad.. In any case how do you know? Am i talking about an outrageous subject when i mention conscience?

Now i think i have told enough about the consciousness of discrimination perhaps we can all delve some deeper.

----------~~~~~~~~~~~-----------

Personal confrontation with discrimination.

As far as my memorys go back i have been aware of the subject. Not in the terms of this article, but i was told all people are equal, appearances made no differences, and had taken that message for granted. I remember how when perhaps i was 7, i recognised the discrepancy between this modest ideal and actual politics. I must admit some of the teachers helped with that, by making one or another nation a topic. Back in the seventys it was selfexplainatory to give some insight in the colonialist era and her discriminating traits, there was little else to tell about these countrys recent historys. So perhaps when i was 10 i had recognised postkolonialism, and neocolonialism instinctively.
Otoh i was just a small child, i didn't, like now, have the idea that i knew quitte some that was going about on this world. The everrepeated anticommunist propaganda made some impression on me. Personally i didn't consider russians or sovjets a big thread , somehow they appealed to me more then the propaganda would have it.

By that time ofcourse i had been thoroughly informed about the mechanism of discrimination for several reasons, majorly perhaps that i was such a lousy sportsperson. It's got something to do with another, because i find no motivation to run and excercise for the joy of beating others, putting myself in a better position then others..

Ofcourse from that period onwards i have been bombarded with the usual conventionalist arguments, conformism, but it failed to make much of an impression. However it took still many years for me to realise how scared and biased i had been towards communism.
(Acually only the past 3 years i grew to understand that the intentions of communism naturally caused a lot of good science and knowledge to develop.)

All the while africa, and eg. southeast asia as well, met enormous problems, so my conviction that discrimination for race was a common thing grew. I think from 11 or 12 onward you might describe me as anti-imperialist. There is little to add, only that i opened my eyes to see the signs. And it was appaling. I realised that when you would be a minority person in netherlands, every day in your life would be tainted by what we call racism, (its a bit of a vague term, since ethnocentrism in regional politics need be all but harmfull and you might as well call the unbiased promotion of ethnic cultures and genes rasism.)

So i realised that african, every former indonesian every dutch person from surinam or antilles, every refugee, every foreign labourer, and even most priviliged students of exchange course would note it. So i checked a couple of times, and they told me, yes it was easy to notice and
happened all the time, more then i thought..(and i did consider what i thought happened nightmairish). Every day you would notice, no exceptions you would notice, it would waste any school , study or job, in these early days of my social engagement. And i decided to fight it,
not fight it with violence, but study , analyse and voice against it. Wich i did. It got me more lonely ofcourse that i wouldn't express such common bait to degrade my fellows but be a part of a group. But i wonder what set me on the track that made me analyse the psychologys behind it?

The sociologist effects, the political intends, and the grey area between conscious and subconscious discrimination. I think it was womans liberation that for us western europeans as a culture did that, and i think it did for me. Allthough i am not happy with the speed of renewing our pedagogic stances, it was pointed out to us, i read the papers, must have known it from the papers, subconscious and collectively shared bias paved the way for discrimination.

Somehow however in these days, there was a certain stressing of the relation between discrimination and colour. We were kinda taught to think of discrimination as 'rassism' and the addition of discrimination of woman opened the window to understand that in all this positional struggle for powers, discrimination was a severe personal , social and collective event that actually dictated almost all lives, certainly those not with 'the happy few'.

I think as soon as i decided to be instrumental in womansliberation, i had the need to determine the effects and expanses of discrimination in my own surrroundings, my context.
Since actually i thought it made sense to start with not discriminating woman. I regret some decissions i made and the awkward attitude it sometimes gave me with woman, but i never regretted the topic, since i feel to understand what moves you, makes you more human.

After i knew of the subconsious part of discrimination, not really the indoctrination part, where you start believing woman are so, or man are such and such... or girls like puppet's..
boys like cars, i checked myself for it.
And it was there, meeting a group of marrocan guys in the dark would get me more scared at times the meeting usually less appealing, whites.. well it was not a complete surprise, but very crazy that. Also some friends of mine have been so good to point out how i let my judgement still be lead by subconscious standards, how even the tiniest minor incident, (ofcourse there most persistently) where i thought i was operating smooth, or at least not being biased, the prejudice might perpetrate my reality..

i learned a lot from that and i am very ashamed. One thing i learned is i will not ever in this live be able to be unprejudiced. Even in movements and conversation this evil sickness of biased discrimination may at any moment take over, and spoil reality. It may even do something constantly, taking someone to notice, 'elas ofcourse most people have the similar mechanism subconscious, for me to notice. Well.. for YOU to notice to.

If i make a guess,no it is not a guess, an indication , how much bias there is? Bias is in all of us, every day, all kinds of bias.. against woman, colour kids, animals religions, and whatever not.
Even our own sanctuarys are no guarantee. It made me think of what i argued earlier,
that bias against our context is in all of us, even if there is no facilitating collective prejudice to account for it.

Then it's time to move on to the psychology, because if you have such a hard time fighting something, you must know better why it happens. I have been discriminated a whole shipload in my own life since i like colourfull and odd clothes and for other reasons. As a result i do have an insider view on the subject and it is a chosen feature. I realise and realised over long, that bias would be my part if i wouldn't abide to the prejudice about clothes. that i would be 'discriminated'. I never was a standard person wich i always knew.

(it's got a personal turning point, a moment of insight , in wich i thought what do i do with myself, i know who i am, i know what i am, will i consider myself, the me i know, or will i be an insane and deny what i know. ANd i decided, that even if people don't want to know it, i could not practically function without making it a secure knowledge. So indeed define me (my history), analogue to my ways eg. (at least that was fertile).
I was young perhaps 7, 8 or 9. i would guess 7. An obvious choice between to accept and move on, and to deny and always be confused, i can't deny i was confused when i accepted that i couldn't deny i didn't want to be confused.

The merit of it is this very moment several readers may discriminate me now, upholding their bias, and all the rest will be blessed with slight notion of what it is not to discriminate.

all of this is.......

Psychology.

Food for thought. I have deducted before that discrimination is probably older then humans,
so why not start with an intuitive 'natural psychology of disrimination'. I was heading there sideways intrinsically, and it may hand us a tool, and therefore tools, to naturally cope with this mechanism of elimination of the group.

Basicly yesterday i thought how bacteria would experience to be discriminated, a pile of bacteria somewhere and one decides to move closer to a second, leaving a third in more cold.
selfpitty and sadness, or is it the despair that causes the sadness?
Coincedentually some opposites: reward, joy and security are famous political arguments.

Anyhow i think my chapter natural shows how elementary feelings like sadness despair and selfpitty will reflect the causes of the more secondairy discrimination in groups where there is no direct need to eliminate members. And i will not ever wish to consider humans that way, save what you not.

Natural discrimination on a more complex level, like say birds, takes place according to 'laws';
a stronger partner is a better protector, a faster gatherer of food, a better nourisher, and allthough groups of birds may excile members and discriminate them (out of a need to eliminate some consumption of resources or to compensate for that instinct) the usual victim is old or otherways substandard even in the human eye.

Mammals sometimes eliminate soem of the substandard part when there is foodabundance,
3 legged rats eg. stand a decent chance in such cases. Where for a chicken it is dangerous to let blood. So since we are mammals as well, we may assume this emotional regulator is active in us,
and we don't opt to hyperefficiently eliminate every weaker member. like eg. bacteria have no other choice.

historical psychology of discrimination.

To much stuff. Let me instead try some psychological history of discrimination, that is much shorter. Obviously the starting point is different for many people, the inuit, amazon tribes, and north american nations, know a very short period where discrimination is the main regulating factor of their societys. Some might still not believe it.

This is interesting since it provided literature with many charming romantic examples of how nice and natural a human can be , when meeting the guns of the capitalists.
Racial discrimination is as old as the greek cicilisation is europe perhaps, and certainly has always been there with the romans. The egyptian culture is one of the few classic cultures taht don't hold a huge racial bias. But also there, whiteness of the rulers has been a heraldic feature,
set from a period after southern egypt provided a faraoh. Actually there is reason to assume similar disriminatory values played part in south american cultures, though i have not yet seen sound proof.(militairy traditions being something possibly different). At least china nicknamed every thread, perhaps the least discriminating culture have been the indus cultures, a decent proof for that is that eventually they were overrun and extinguished, despite their unrivalled powers at that time. Usually more military or militant cultures in this stadium of prosperity just beat the lesser developed groups around them. But the opposite can also be the case. A severely pressed group that had to move into the territory that got discriminated took the right in their own hands. Perhaps interesting that aspect of harappa culture. Shang was a class society.

Since now we arrived at the very early stages of classic civilisation, with all societys stratigraphically and slaves and concepts of race abounding, we can conclude discrimination was in the firstest of huger settlements, and (quitte uncontrary to archeological evindence) neolithic agricultural people that started to live in smaller fixed places have probably been the first ones to introduce arbitrary values and bias to the local mindset.

So psychology went from preagricultural times, where discrimination was a natural mechanism well understood, like with the inuit, to the agricultural times , when it probably served the same uses as the defence works, that is to seperate the farmers form the free roaming hunters.
Linguistically then roots of discrimination can be related to this difference in occupation, and indeed one ancient and abundant way to discriminate the less technological culture has been to call them the 'wild people' (not the 'free' or 'hunting' people).

My guess is the social discrimination, as was a usual and known psychological tool in preagicultural times, turned bad as a result of this, in these societys. Stratigraphy and its abuse
rise quickly, and it is even quitte sure we will not understand the exchanges when we don't take into account europe was agriculturised through people bringing an already altered mindset on discrimination.

I think after this it is simple, the longer the exchange with the industrialising cultures lasted the more inevitable it became to develop a discriminating mindset of one's own. Advances in philosophy or if you want to point finger, eg. militairy history contributed as did churches that usually were based on older religions , and likewise the advance of sciences and media contributed to bias prejudice and discrimination, consciously for political interests, and subconsciously because you cannot root out an evil you don't fight but nourish.

As a result of this i am ashamed of the world i live in, ashamed of the way we think.
However the 20th century brought womansliberation and the theory of that provided us with a handhold to counter discrimination, despite that much of the subconsious bias is hard to deal with , since we don't in the least control it, and not yet ever will, points have been made, and underlined that deny the right of existence to (unnatural and subnatural) discrimination.

Collective discrimination.

This is another wide subject, the fact remains discrimination in the sence i want to discuss it now
is always collective. Another compromising aspect is that the subject media should be covered somehow, at some point.. way to much..

The two go hand in hand in my context, but there is one possible difference, our education through our familys is a prime cause for our state of mind. Apparently even outspoken 'antiracist' parents implement the bias. This was easy to verify, less outspoken parents managed to implement subconscious rasism to a bigger degree, even so that their products, their children,
became profoundly ridiculous in my eyes. No matter how hard i tried to realise i did not do much better. That a better educational pretext helped some, however, remained easy to witness.

Similarly the statute of the mother may be reflected in the children of the family. I didn't go into great lengths on that. Obviously we cope with the other sex on partially subconscious terms,
almost everyone can feel insecure when they are in love. I carry a suspicion that the general attitude towards woman promotes that they handle events more subconsioucly, it is my impression through this, indeed they handle it better sometimes. If you are forced to subconsciously operate you may still wish to implement as much integrity as you can.

perhaps this is a funny point to reintroduce the concept of collective psychology, because although it looks to me like i declare my love, give shape to my love for woman, a person may feel insulted because they don't understand. Well if all these people that don't understand,
share a common reaction, we stumbled upon collective psychology, and it is surprising how often this translates to (unnatural) discrimination.

According to some dreamy mathematicians among us, all is probably solved now, discrimination , the making of differences... nothing wrong with that..
but in my opinion it is part of the prejudice. Another thorough example of collective psychology,
we don't want to have clear terms for our errors, so that we can find excuses to put other meanings on the label. Media do this, politicians, and persons. But if they not yet didn't it will also make groups do so. And that is the whole point of the collective psychology, it is used to make a group do what they want opposing an individual, (that is thereafter or hence, or even
belonging already, to something classified somehow , as "different" people.)

Although the eventual solution for the problem has a lot to do with how we handle our collective psychology how the media handles dicrimination, we can now switch to the individual, to solve the problem, we cannot be born again and educated again, we will need to help solve the problem in our lives, and for that we will have to look at ...

personal (individual) discrimination.

Already i showed how it was for me. And if there is one characteristic i acknowledge for my subconsious flaws it is facility. I facilitate my judgement through my subconsious bias.
Since i don't cherish egoist or eg. eurocentric interest, i ended up facilitating my thoughtsproces.
And indeed in social interaction discrimination is grossly facilitating. Wether it is to eliminate points of view, or not to have to explain your subconsious hampering, bias is facilitating..
So what is facilitated, ofcourse generalisations and many other aspects of thought are similar
processes in the thoughtproces, we have a huge room for usefull generalisations, that can get polluted with prejudices. The natural and unnatural proces of discrimination.

All of it rooted deeply under the level of conscious thought. I think what we facilitate actually, because bias gets ridiculous easily, is where this reflection of a bacteri kicks in.
Its a well known psychological clue, we project against our discomfort, in other words, we are jealous. And since we are jealous at our neighbouring bacteria, we try to peck ordre any one that wouldn't fit our personal description. So i think we have to become better people to be less discrimnatory? yes i think that. I think that the process to eliminate some of your personal prejudice, to become a less subconsious person, is the same process that you need to go through,
to be less of an egoist, more selfcritical, generally generous, tolerant, and fascinated with the
challenge objectivity, purity, truth offers.

PS: people may whine about my contribution to mankind, take my bankaccount for it..,
i don't care. I still have to meet the person i would respect for contributing more, allthough it is easy to recognise and respect that too many tried , and sometimes to more glamorous result.
However these people that like to voice i didn't, none of them i trust to essentially have contributed anything to the planet.