Procrastination of Life.

When procrastinating, one tends to do absolutely nothing of any relevance. For what reason is that? Some may argue that the reason we; as a species, refuses to undergo an action, is that any form of physical; or mental exertion has the ability to cause pain.
Peculiar isn’t it? Indeed, but not illogical.

Imagine for one moment, an activity/action which you have been avoiding, (putting off) now imagine yourself undergoing said activity, you impulsively cringe at the matter, a shudder at the thought of doing whatever it is, why is this? To avoid for now an objective scientific answer, let me first speculate.

The shudder, or cringe which occurs post thought, may be your sub-conscious mind rapidly contemplating the action, and passing through the positive effects, and the negative effects of this action. An example, if you will:
“I really ought to deal with that washing”
“But what if it rains, what if you miss out on something else, what if you slip on something?” 
In a manner of seconds, your sub-conscious has come to a decision, and you are barely aware of it.

The brain will begin to attempt to rationalize not engaging in that task:

“If I do that, I am going to miss out on something big” To which you retrieve  your smart phone from your pocket, and begin perusing articles and images of cats, which you have analysed and read, more times than the priesthood has molested children. But alas, still you are adamant that completing the task, will result on you, severely missing out.

This civil debate within your critical faculties has already wasted several minutes, the browsing of social media could last for some hours. The mind begins to rationalize further, the time which you have wasted. “Well it is too late to do that now, oh well.”  “I guess you didn’t miss out on anything, but you could have” “Look now, after not doing what you ought to, you are not injured, doing that could have lead to an injury”

Could you imagine if this species, applied that logic to procreation… First and foremost the world would of greater beauty, your adventure across the ocean would not be spoiled by the shrill war cry of the small, festering pile of flesh and mucous, if the parents had procrastinated the birth of that child. But alas, that is the biology of humanity, the only way to evolve is to procreate. Birth equals survival.

So for what reason do we procrastinate on other tasks? One very simple answer is, how the elderly tend to see the world, to quote almost every grandmother, “There are too many distractions”  Perhaps your decrepit elder is correct, without social media, without recreation, without anything but the task, maybe the task would be completed.
However what the ancient bones are neglecting to consider is thus:

Everything and anything is a ‘distraction’

Without distractions, we would have the following. ‘birth, consume food, defecate, sleep, wake up, repeat for ten years, hormonal uprising, procreate, eventually die of natural causes, repeat’ how utterly dull does that sound?

Ironically enough, this was composed in a blizzard of procrastination.

The Fears of Immigration.

Citizens in the ‘western’ societies are becoming increasingly suspicious and cautious in regards to the recent influx of down-trodden refugees from the war-torn Middle East. With thousands of people taking to the streets  in protest of laws recently implemented by politicians.

Now, there are several queries to consider when contemplating this specific type of immigration.

1. How much space do we have? 
2. Will these immigrants cause harm? 
3. What do we gain from allowing/banning them from entering?

In regards to space, the answer is quite simple. Indeed we do have a plethora of space, the desolate and barren farmlands that farmers horde for themselves, and never implement any life, or use this space for anything at all. Of course, it would be ludicrous to assume that the government could allocate space for foreigners on private property, unless…

The government could pay an exceptional amount of money for each acre/block of land which is implemented, the money which is sourced from the tax-payer could be used, instead of lining the pockets of the politicians who allow the foreign immigrants to access the services and amenities which citizens of the country have worked tirelessly for.

To address the concerns that many people have, do these immigrants cause harm? One is first inclined to define ‘harm’ to divert from the dictionary definition, as many have. The correlation between ‘harm’ and ‘refugee’ is often the word ‘terrorist’  there are concerns of terrorists smuggling themselves in with the refugees as they traverse the treacherous oceans, avoiding the coast-guard, and those who are seeking to have them returned.

But if one were to analyse the recent  acts of terrorism, it is noticeable that the perpetrators; whilst Muslim, were citizens of the country the attacks occurred within.
(From the Charlie Hebdo Shooting Wikipedia Page)

“Police quickly identified brothers Saïd Kouachi (French pronunciation: [sa.id kua.ʃi]; 7 September 1980 – 9 January 2015) and Chérif Kouachi ([ʃe.ʁif]; 29 November 1982 – 9 January 2015) as the main suspects.[c] French citizens born in Paris to Algerian immigrants, the brothers were orphaned at a young age after their mother’s apparent suicide and placed in a foster home inRennes.[87] After two years, they were moved to an orphanage in Corrèze in 1994, along with a younger brother and an older sister.[91][92] The brothers moved to Paris around 2000.[93]”

And the Nice Attack

“French police identified the perpetrator as Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, a 31-year-old man of Tunisian nationality,[58] born in Tunisia, with a French residency permit and living in Nice.[9] His parents live in Tunisia and rarely heard from him since he moved to France in 2005.”

That is merely two examples, albeit within the same country. But the point still stands.

However, the recent reports of sexual assaults in Germany, are not be overlooked. These are severe and legitimate concerns. Refugees are expected to assimilate the culture of which they are residing, not to the contrary. The disgraceful Islamic belief that women ought to be modest and submit to their ‘husbands’ ought to be rendered absurd and null and void in the western society, any refugee who has the audacity to assault a women based upon some ludicrous belief, shall be immediately deported. After viable evidence of the assault is provided, of course.

Terrorists require a prominent amount of time to organize and plan these attacks, which is not to say that terrorists are not smuggling themselves in, along side the terrorists. There is no viable evidence which currently supports that concern.

But even if it were so, formal and official vetting of asylum seekers could prevent this from occurring, however as ‘Terrorism’ permeates from an ideology, it can be difficult to discern who may be intending to cause harm. I do not claim to have an appropriate method of separating the silent terrorists, from the silent refugees, we are not thought police, and we ought to refrain from ever being such.

The third and final query, what do we gain from allowing asylum seekers?

Peace of Mind. The reassurance that lives have been saved,we can see the faces of the refugees with our own eyes, as opposed to seeing them on an ISIS Propaganda video.

What do we gain from banning asylum seekers?

Temporary safety, but the more you deny them, they more inclined they are to believe the vitriol ISIS spews forth from their propaganda experts.

The final laugh of a child.

Youth from the perspective of an anti-natalist.

 

Imagine looking out, over an empty playground. Nothing but the melancholy swing-set gently moving in the warm summers breeze. When a lonesome child comes into view and begins to swing back and forth. Looking from your office building, where you work fruitlessly for hours upon hours, the same routine constantly. You may not need to imagine such a scenario, you may live it. But I digress, you are looking out, over the playground; at the single child, contemplating your own existence, when a thought suddenly strikes you. “One day, I will die” A very solemn thought, almost as melancholy as the lonely swing-set. But your attention turns back to the child, and a similar thought enters your mind. “One day, he will die” This is ultimately true, both of you, will eventually pass away, peacefully? Maybe. Suffering, most probably.

David Benatar cites the statistics of death:

  • more than fifteen million people are thought to have died from natural disasters in the last 1,000 years,
  • approximately 20,000 people die every day from hunger,
  • an estimated 840 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition,
  • between 541 ce and 1912, it is estimated that over 102 million people succumbed to plague,
  • the 1918 influenza epidemic killed 50 million people,
  • 11 million people die every year from infectious diseases,
  • malignant neoplasms take more than a further 7 million lives each year,
  • approximately 3.5 million people die every year in accidents,
  • approximately 56.5 million people died in 2001, that is more than 107 people per minute,
  • before the twentieth century over 133 million people were killed in mass killings,
  • in the first 88 years of the twentieth century 170 million (and possibly as many as 360 million) people were shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hanged, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners,
  • there were 1.6 million conflict-related deaths in the sixteenth century, 6.1 million in the seventeenth century, 7 million in the eighteenth, 19.4 million in the nineteenth, and 109.7 million in the twentieth,
  • war-related injuries led to 310,000 deaths in 2000,
  • about 40 million children are maltreated each year,
  • more than 100 million currently living women and girls have been subjected to genital cutting,
  • 815,000 people are thought to have committed suicide in 2000[55] (currently it is estimated that someone commits suicide every 40 seconds, more than 800,000 people per year).
    1. D. Benatar, Better…, op. cit., pp. 6-7.
    2. D. Benatar, Better…, op. cit., pp. 88-92.
    3.  International Association for Suicide Prevention, World Suicide Prevention Day.

    The Wikipedia page.

Spend some time, reading over those statistics, especially how many children are mistreated, each and every year. Forty million, that is larger than the population of Australia. These children, are brought into the world without consent. These children are born, not of their own volition and they suffer for it. Perhaps it may be considered a ‘cop-out’ to state that, the only way to prevent the suffering of humanity, is to curtail the production of said humanity. But this is not a ‘cop-out’ suggestion, it is quite a beautiful suggestion.

The philosopher Jan Narveson  argues thus:
1. There is no moral obligation to produce a child even if we could be sure that it will be very happy throughout his life.
2.There is a moral obligation not to produce a child if it can be foreseen that it will be unhappy.

Narveson comes to the conclusion:

3. In general – if it can be foreseen neither that the child will be unhappy nor that it will bring disutility upon others – there is no duty to have or not to have a child.

One could then argue that regardless of whether a child would be happy, or unhappy, the most moral choice would be to not produce a child, as it would be impossible to discern the happiness of something that has yet to be. Therefore, instead of primarily focusing upon the well-being of something that isn’t, the focus can be directed to the well-being of that which is.

According to the list of children within orphanages, compiled by Orphan Hope International the current amount of children within orphanages is approximately “between 143 million and 210 million”

The article goes on to state:

“According to data released in 2003 as many as eight million boys and girls around the world live in institutional care. Some studies have found that violence in residential institutions is six times higher than violence in foster care, and that children in group care are almost four times more likely to experience sexual abuse than children in family based care.”

  • And implements further statistics on children currently residing in orphanages:
  • Every day 5,760 more children become orphans
  • Approximately 250,000 children are adopted annually, but…
  • Each year 14, 505, 000 children grow up as orphans and age out of the system by age sixteen
  • Each day 38,493 orphans age out
  • Every 2.2 seconds another orphan ages out with no family to belong to and no place to call home
  • Studies have shown that 10% – 15% of these children commit suicide before they reach age eighteen
  • These studies also show that 60% of the girls become prostitutes and 70% of the boys become hardened criminals
  • Another study reported that of the 15,000 orphans aging out of state-run institutions every year, 10% committed suicide, 5,000 were unemployed, 6,000 were homeless and 3,000 were in prison within three years…
  • An estimated 1.2 million children are trafficked every year; (THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2005)
  • 2 million children, the majority of them girls, are sexually exploited in the multibillion-dollar commercial sex industry. (THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN 2005)

Would it not be more morally sound, to focus the attention to the children which have spent years in practically capitulation? Instead of fretting, and concerning oneself with what emerges from the womb of a female. The unfortunate amount of suffering which occurs on a regular basis, is heartbreaking. Yet there are still people who would care to refuse the rights of  women, and men, to implement the use of contraceptives, and birth control. These (Mostly religious) individuals care not for what occurs to the child, once it has departed from the womb, so long as the mother/father do not act against the religiously instated regulations.

For what possible reason, would producing a child; which may come to be: miserable, abused, abandoned or even deceased, benefit society? Surely if attention was directed to those which already exist, there would be a significant decrease in suffering. Perhaps even an increase in technology and scientific advancements.

Without the need to care about producing new life when there is a crisis of overpopulation, humanity may finally reach it’s peak, before gracefully coming to it’s beautiful conclusion after the final human passes away. Filled with extensive knowledge and a mind full of memories. Or suffer horribly, writhing in antagonizing pain for the final few days of its life. Either way, the suffering ends after that, nature reclaims what humanity sought to steal. Things return to the time prior to the virus of humanity. The next stage of life may continue.

Imagine yourself, sitting on a sun-scorched beach, the last remnants of humanity, seated beside you; the cure for cancer, is no longer necessary, natural selection reclaims its power. The sun is slowly setting over a red horizon, the water, silently splashing at your worn soles. All that can be known, is. Your white hair, wispy and scarce, the cool beverage in your hand, almost empty. Knowing that you were one of the last, the final hurrah of ages gone by.

Would that not be beautiful?

The Harmful Censorship Act.

In lieu of the “Roastbusters” incident of 2015. A new act was formed, an act which is known as the ‘Harmful Communications Act’ (HCA) What this act entails is extremely vague, almost too vague. The act states the following: “Under section 19 of the Act a person will commit the new criminal offence if:
– the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and posting the communication causes harm to the victim.”

“The intention that it cause harm to a victim” – Now this is where the first issue arises, how might one be so inclined as to deduce what could be considered “harmful?” The HCA describes “harm’ as “Serious emotional distress”. This is completely ludicrous, there is very little stopping somebody from feigning emotional distress in order to have somebody unjustly convicted, and forever branded a ‘cyber-bully’, another word which is complete nonsense, and I will return to this presently.

But I digress, what is to happen if you are found guilty of ‘harmful communications’

“The criminal offence carries a hefty penalty of up to two years imprisonment, or a fine up to $50,000 (or, for a body corporate, a fine of up to $200,000).”

Two years! Two years of imprisonment for essentially offending somebody upon the internet. Or the absurdly exorbitant settlement of $200,000. The free speech laws of New Zealand are as follows:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”.

The HCA almost completely contrasts the statement prior. But the government has been known is disregard this law in particular situations, one needs only look to the unlawful and violent raid on the mansion of the internet tycoon and ‘MegaUpload’ founder ‘Kim Dotcom’ which involved “invalid, vague and overtly general” search warrants. Unfortunately said ruling was overturned in 2014, where another judge decided the exact opposite, stating that the raids were “not unreasonably vague” albeit went on to say that the reports could have been more precisely written.

I do not wish to adorn an aluminium foil hat, but in this case, it seems quite suspicious. Not to mention that Kim Dotcom had committed exactly zero crimes in New Zealand and were merely dancing to the sinister tune of America. But back to what is more relevant.

This ‘communications act’ is exactly that, vague and too general. It would be of little contrivance to manipulate the act, and have any dissenting opinions you find ‘offensive’ removed by the district court.    

Moving swiftly onto what I had promised to come back to. ‘Cyber-bullying’ the form of harassment which does not exist. I wish it to be known that I do not condone the harassment of anybody, online or offline. Bullying is utterly pathetic.
However, unlike schoolyard/workplace harassment, ‘online harassment’ is entirely optional. It does not continue without the support of the supposed ‘victim.’

If I am not mistaken, almost every single form of social media has a ‘block’ function, which allows you to block out the criticism and noise, without removing the other person’s freedom of speech.  
However with the new laws in place, not only could criticism be met with conviction and a rather hefty fine, the person who has ‘offended’ is no longer able to express any opinions, as the District Court has the power to disable the person’s social media account(s) Which ought not to happen.

A perfect example of this recently is the ‘Leslie Jones vs Milo Yiannopoulos’ debacle which was spread around social media for a matter of minutes before the media leaped to the next big scoop.    

What ought to happen is the following:

If somebody is harassed online, they certainly should consult a parent or caregiver, but the “”””victim”””” ought to be informed to block the “””””offender”””” it should only be considered a ‘crime’ if the harassment continues in the schoolyard, or workplace. No single person should have the power to silence others. Or else we will be walking on thin eggshells for the rest of our miserable lives on this planet.

Milo Yiannopoulos and the permanent Twitter ban.

Several days ago, the homosexual conservative pundit ‘Milo Yiannopoulos’ composed a review of the latest ‘Ghostbusters’ film. whereas Yiannopoulos heavily lambasted the film, referring to it as an “abomination” and “Vacuous” Yiannopoulos went on to decry how the film was purely third-wave feminist drivel, and how “lack of intelligence” in regards to the plot of the film.

Frequently stating his observations as to how the target of this film is “men” Yiannopoulos used the example of *SPOILER* *SPOILER* the main antagonist of the film are the Big Bad Government, which consists entirely of men… How surprising, these feminists do love to see themselves as the ‘Body-positive’ heroes who take back power from men, loosely referencing the first and second waves of feminism, and the sincere goals that were achieved by those brave women.

But moving on from the review, we find ourselves at the current issue…

Yiannopoulos took to Twitter to express contempt towards one of the actresses ‘Leslie Jones’ (Who has, herself on a regular basis, let off barrages of ‘by-her-standards’ racist comments) Whilst not mentioning anything that could be considered ‘racist’ his followers certainly did, deriding Jones for her role in the film, and others. Jones struck back, playing the card of a victim, the second card Jones seems to have in her deck, the other card being the ‘attacker’ card. But I digress, ‘Jack Dorsey’, the founder of Twitter, and buddy to the atrocious ‘Black Lives Matter’ ordeal which has cursed the fine streets of the United States for too long, decided to privately message Jones…

What occurred presently was the removal of several accounts, including that of Milo Yiannopoulos. Followed by the hypocritical celebratory scream of Jones, bragging on live television that she has the power to silence dissenting opinions.

A VERY DANGEROUS POWER FOR ANYONE TO HAVE.

Now why is the ban of Yiannopoulos unnecessary and abhorrent? Because it depicts the beginning  of the end for free speech on Twitter. Silencing opinions is by far the worse crime, because it is entirely avoidable, online ‘harassment’ can be curtailed with a click of the mouse, using the ‘Block Function’ every single social medium has just for this particular reason, blocking the opinions of those YOU do not want to hear.

If Jones has merely blocked Yiannopoulos and his followers, everything would be cushty, Jones would still be depressingly unfunny, and Yiannopoulos would be free to be his usual obnoxious and prick-esque self.

But alas, it is not so, Jones opted for complete censorship of something she felt ‘didn’t upset her, but was not right’ and what is unfortunate, is the mindless hordes of regressive leftists will raise their fists into the air and celebrate this attack of free speech.

I may not agree with the majority of what Yiannopoulos has to say, but I support his right to say it, more than I support Jones’s right to censor anything that criticizes her acting talent, or lack thereof.