People have the wrong idea about motivation

I think people have the wrong attitude and perception about motivation. Motivation shouldn't be thought of as an aid to act because that's not where it applies and can even derail your efforts. Motivation applies when you are thinking and strategising about a particular issue, and it's required actions. The motivation is needed when you really want to view an issue from all angles, fully research it, remove any emotion from your thoughts, and think of solutions with a clear and expanded view. Because only then, can the 'right' solution result.

And once you have the 'right' path, the actions don't require motivation. Your actions should just become a habit because your path is clear and these are the actions necessary for that path. People have it backwards. You can't get fired-up in order to perform the actions, you can only perform the actions and get fired-up.

An analogy of this is deciding to hit the gym. Motivation must be used to sit down with yourself, logically think, come to the realisation that you need to work on yourself physically, and research/plan it. If you require motivation each day to get in the car and head to the gym then this life-direction will probably not work in the long run. What happens if you don't have the motivation that day? No, you have to develop this into a habit where you just unthinkingly pack your gear, get in the car, walk into the gym, and start because these are simply your necessary actions.

The respect we show Christians who disrespect

 

So 7 Manly players have stood themselves down and will not play this weekend's critical game because Manly has decided to replace their usual white stripes on the jerseys with the rainbow pride colours to support inclusion.

It's just beyond my mental capabilities how Christians can continue their history of bigotry, and even worse that it is somehow accepted within society by showing respect to their thoughts in their heads which disrespect and cause real harm for 5% of the population. Society must feel that the disrespect and harm to the gay/trans community is less of an evil than the disrespect of the bigoted Christians. It has to be this way. There can be no other conclusion that my little brain can come up with.

And imagine if I am a Manly player and I come to the coach and say I can't play because the rainbow pride colours are the war colours of my god Urassty on the planet Delobus and I can't anger him. What do you think would happen?

No, society is inching slowly forward towards an inclusive future and constantly bumping into the bigotry of people using 2,000yo words in a book to attempt to retain the power and privilege the white Christian had solely because of, well, being white christians.

But let me repeat my message which must be sickeningly correct for society to operate like this. Society must feel that the disrespect and harm to the gay/trans community is less of an evil than the disrespect of the bigoted Christians.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/26/nrls-pride-jersey-debacle-compounded-by-sports-power-imbalance

Abortion bans have nothing to do with the unborn child.

 Well, the US has now banned abortions at the federal level, returning their society to dirty back-alleys, mutilated and dead women, and secret visits to their 'Aunt' in another more progressive State.

This is a very worrying sign, not only because of the impact on women, but because it is the judicial system taking rights away. And yet 61% of Americans want abortion legal (Joe Biden became President with less support), so the motives of this decision are certainly not based on the will of the people.

We also have to remember that Row vs Wade was not about abortion per se. It was about the right of privacy; that a citizen has the right for privacy in matters which pertain solely to their own lives, and therefore the State could not intrude in those decisions. So it is indeed worrying that the US Supreme Court somehow justified this decision which erodes this basic human right which is the foundation of being free.

Therefore their motives must be darker. And they are. 

1) For American Christians, abortion was never an issue before the 1950s. It was deemed a 'Catholic problem' by even the most evangelical Christian churches. However, that all changed when the civil rights movement gained power in the 50s, and it culminated when the Supreme Court ruled against segregation of schools in Brown vs Board of Education. This decision incensed the whites of the Southern States of course and they needed a platform to rally the troops to fight against these progressive measures. Now they couldn't fight against integration, so they needed a new issue to fight which, without actually saying it, promoted the white supremacy ideals. And that was abortion.

And abortion was chosen because they knew it was an issue that affected the poor and people of colour disproportionally more than whites. Whites knew that regardless of an abortion ban, whites could get their precious Tiffany a safe abortion when a 'mistake' was made. So the roots of the abortion debate is racism.

2) And today, the US Supreme Court knows this and doesn't care. They know that the poor and people of colour are the victims of this decision. They know that it does not impact the rich at all. In fact, it favours the rich immensely. Because this decision puts more financial pressure on the people who can least afford it. And these people, who are forced to bear another child, now have even less freedom and therefore less ability to live free independent lives, and most importantly, mount any opposition to the rich. In other words, the abortion bans allow the rich to engage in slavery without the beatings and chains.

Don't think it has anything to do with the unborn child.

Depression vs 'Who am i?"

I think depression is the constant stress that the persona you have created of yourself does not bring you happiness. Whatever you try, it's always decided upon and seen through the lenses of your persona. And you don't know where to turn, because wherever you turn, you are there. It's like this great sentence my mum told me once: when you move, you bring yourself with you.

But true internal happiness can not come from a persona, unless you are amongst the rare individuals that have never had a deep thought in your entire life. I can be happy as Eric of course, but that is only if the persona of Eric is happy, and this is always fleeting. 

And what is the persona of Eric? Well, I've made it up. I have taken my experiences and thoughts I had when I was 10, 15, ..., 62 and formed a character. It's like an author of a book creating a character and thinking of what attributes this character will have, except I have done this with myself. But what I have forgotten is that Eric, at times, has output the full set of human personality that my DNA can produce; I've been quiet and loud, introverted and extroverted, smart and dumb, caring and indifferent, articulate and completely tongue-tied, aggressive and timid, etc. But we never ask ourselves why we were (say) extroverted on that particular day; we would probably answer "because I felt good" or something. But that's not the truth; I was extroverted that day because my persona allowed extroversion to be possible that day. Or a better way to put it is; my persona did not get in the way of any number of actions on that particular day, and extroversion just popped out... because I am capable of extroversion. 

This is why the self-created persona is bad, and greatly contributes to suffering and depression. It robs us of the range of the actions/thoughts we can have in any particular situation. 

So a person will ask: So who are we then? If a persona is made-up, then who really am I? The answer is I am all of the different personalities and characteristics I have ever projected, and I am none of them. And this answer won't sit well with people, they will say it's all hand-wavy and nebulous, and it doesn't define me as an individual. But it's true. I can be all of them or none of them, with every situation being a mixture of them.

And this concept of having the capability to be any set of characteristics on any given situation, scares some people. They want to wake up as Sally, not as just a collection of possible thoughts and actions. But Sally comes with self-imposed baggage, for her persona has been created out of fear masquerading as practicality. 

What is this fear? It is a fear that the consequences of being free is that you are lost. It is the fear that being completely yourself is not enough. And depression is the persona drowning that person in those thoughts. 

I like Eric. Overall he's a good guy. But I want to be free, and to truly be free I have to ditch my friend, Eric. I shouldn't say that... Eric is good for lots of things; like he comes in handy when I want to travel and can use his passport, so he has to stay. But he can be an albatross around my neck at times. And if my inner happiness is somehow tied to how Eric is feeling that day, well then, I'd rather not have him there if I am to be fully open to what I have been given and can harness at any given time. If I can meet every new situation with the full range of my thoughts then how could I possibly be inwardly unhappy? What would I need Eric for?

US gun-shop owners still grapple with morality

 

Why are those gun-shop owners so skittish about talking about whether the Buffalo serial killer got his weapons from them? If they believe in the US gun laws and the 2nd amendment right to own a firearm, and more importantly, their ability to arm the populace with said weapons, why are they unwilling to talk about their possible involvement? Shouldn't they have long since justified their part in the whole cesspool that is America gun ownership? 32,000 Americans die from firearms per year. Do they not see their personal connection to all of this, and produced a logic in their head which allows them to sleep at night?

I find that one gun-shop owner so interesting. Here he is... making his money on the sale of guns, which constitutes 90% of his business, yet says “If he had bought the gun from me and mowed down those poor people,” he said, “I would not be able to go to work.”. What did he think a 18yo man would be doing buying a multi-round assault rifle? Squirrel hunting?

So it seems these gun-shop owners are fine with the legality of buying/owning guns, but still haven't come to grips with the morality of it.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/the-buffalo-shooter-shopped-at-their-gun-stores

Oh well. There goes our right for privacy once again.

 

This shows you how convoluted the laws are in terms of privacy. So the ABF is getting into trouble because they went into people's phone without a warrant. That's a good thing. They should get into trouble. The government has no right to invade your private spaces without legal authorisation. Your phone is just as private as your house.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/08/australian-border-force-searched-822-phones-in-2021-despite-having-no-power-to-demand-passcodes

However, on the exact same day, another article came out (and I will post that link separately below) outlining that Telstra, and all major AU telcos, now scans all SMS messages. The excuse is to reduce scam messages, which to me is a pretty flaccid excuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/apr/07/telstra-to-scan-all-text-messages-for-malicious-content-in-anti-scam-program

But what is the difference between physical going into my phone or reading all my SMS messages? Nothing. Should I now be careful about what content I add to my SMSs? The technology on scanning SMSs for scam content could just as easily be used for any other content. My SMSs are just as personal as my phone. It is illegal for the businesses/government to listen in on your calls, why are SMSs now fair game? And as usual, these exemptions to the privacy laws and the chipping away of our human rights, start out as benign intrusions advertised as beneficial, until the governments realise the power of the information that can be gained.

Here's to the cowards at military command

 

So I've been waiting for evidence like this to come out. It follows such a familiar corrupt path with the military: military creates a killer, turns a blind eye to atrocities on the battlefield, rewards him with promotions and Victoria Cross, journalists dig up some dirt on some misdeeds, military command doesn't want the heat and sacrifices this soldier to uphold whatever honour and ethics the killing of other humans has, news leaks out that the real issue is the military command.

But they can't have that, can they? The military command can't be seen as complicit in these acts, the entire ethos of the military which trains these men to kill and allows these atrocities cannot be put on trial. So they throw these PTSD-ridden soldiers under the bus, to persuade us that there is somehow a code of honour and ethics in the system of invading another country and killing their people. Disgusting.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/04/ben-roberts-smith-and-patrol-let-down-by-weak-leadership-in-sas-court-hears