You have the forces of economic rebalancing and technological change working against you. My strong advice to you is to retrain as something else. There are fields of industry out there where you'd barely realise there ever was a recession, so don't be a lemming. And almost everyone should now let go of the idea of a career/job/trade for life as the pace of change is too great.
Amateur photographers, too many people in your field already, and the economy is moving away from you. If you couldn't find a job with your Art school diploma at the height of silliness and decadence before the fall, it will be even worse post-recession.
Do you not know anyone important? Can't you get a helping hand from a little cronyism/nepotism maybe? As a photographer in the 21st century you're not going to make it in the new economy on merit.
Gypsies are the only group in society where survivors are in the majority. Working or upper class, country or town, the survivors are in the minority everywhere else, and amongst those born in the middle classes I doubt if I've ever met more than a handful of survivors in my entire life.
It's true. My Brother and My Dad are both completely indifferent to animals and I've never been quite sure about them. As a boy I used to wonder if I will wake up in the morning and find everybody dead?(not really).
The Victorians gave us science and factories and prosperity.
Georgian decadence gave us deregulated banks, Wall Street, globalisation, consumerism, the Great depression and both world wars.
The Greatest generation gave us factories, anti-biotics and the moon landing.
The Boomers gave us deregulated banks, Wall Street, consumerism, the Great Recession and wars of intervention.
And now I think we're overdue another leap into future akin to what the Greatest gen. or the Victorians achieved. I think we're on the cusp of massive breakthroughs in fields such as genetic engineering and artificial intelligence and these will lift our nations from the velocity of Boomer decay into the achievements of the future.
My point would be that the stress of necessity is wisdom's one and only ally. Most people only use their brainpower when they absolutely have to, and they've not had to for longer than I've been alive.
Sure, there will always be a few who exercise their brainpower within a generation, but during decadent times you'll find that this brainpower is more aimed towards inventing new tricks and schemes on the derivatives market, or creating media and moral propaganda, and not towards curing cancer or mining Mars.
I think most importantly the teller replaces the tale. The sound of a sentence and certain keywords replace the meaning of the sentence. What you get is a people who understand noises but don't or can't grasp ideas.
What people are saying is very much replaced by who's saying it and the style in which it is said because people don't have the basic faculties to grasp the subject. There's no better example of this than people who endlessly copy and paste, if you understand what you're pasting you should be able to re-write it in your own words, and a critically thinking audience should be able to recognise that it is the same argument written in a different way.
Off-topic but having Putin and the new cold war will answer this question sooner. The last cold war(especially during its early phase and peak)was a golden age of scientific policy and functional and physical innovation. When there's a danger out there all sides come into agreement that science is a necessary tool for our survival, but when everything's perceived as safe and cushty then society directs itself away from science and progress and towards profit and indulgence.
They need to understand exactly how complex life developed on earth and then have a good estimate of the total number of "goldilocks" planets that exist, have ever existed, and will exist in the future. Then they could say, for the sake of example, something like we're 95% sure that there's an 80% chance that we're alone in the universe(so long as earth-like evolution is the only way to create life).
Renegade alpha male. Not the independent leader of men type of traditional alpha, but the renegade alpha teeming with overconfidence or "something about him"(whilst actually being quite talentless and/or lazy)who is a leader of women.
I'd say he's a player, but not the kind of player that men instantly admire and respect.
A new cold war could be a good thing. The West and Liberal Democracy needs someone to spar against to sharpen our senses, and we need to be reminded of our fallibility.
The preceding generations built castles in the sky and thought they were safe, and all of these crumbled in 2008, and Putin could be the opponent to remind us what the world is and bring us down to earth. The challenge that Putin poses to the West will help new generations resist decadence and the strong aversion to reality that possessed our culture for so many years.
Transparent. Women will see through what you're doing and instantly not trust you(at best)or think you're the kind of man who needs to chat up much uglier women online.
Quantity has a quality of its own - my view on urban women.
But I guess it's like fishing. Some men are content with easy catches caught by so many fishermen before, and other men want the rare big fish. And to catch the special fish he needs to find the places where no one goes, and wait out all night if he has to.
Don't believe in the myth of the woman's choice. The woman's choice is whatever the hindbrain animal dictates it to be. As soft and sensitive as women may sound they are significantly more on the "ug" level of thinking than men are. Just because they don't bash people over the head with a rock doesn't mean they're not cavewomen. They're all instinct, all intuition, and there is no reasoning with the primordial heart/tingle that wants what it wants.
Anyway, because women are lacking in this independent "high road" part of the brain which controls the animal and automated "low road" part of the brain it means that women produce very predictable results under similar conditions. (They know this in marketing and sales the greater susceptibility women have to advertising and impulse). And as such it is never the woman's choice, it is the conditions of the environment which determine the woman's choice for her whilst she remains in complete ignorance of this.
Why do you think women place so much emphasis on their uniqueness and their choices? Because the generic mind insists that it is special, and the unfree soul shouts of freedom when the freest souls are unconscious of freedom(freedom to the free is like breathing), and the shout is a rattling of chains. Always was.
Girls don't need to marry sensible providers anymore and bad boys don't want to commit(hence the name bad boys).
There's a difference between saying women are choosing to not get married and saying women can't find any man they'd want to marry(who also wants to marry them). Women are not choosing to not get married, they just don't have (m)any options.
Religion can either unite or divide whereas atheism & agnosticism are simply void of any cohesive or divisive properties. Which isn't to say atheists are not divisive, they're probably more divisive because of the egotism that arises without reverence and awe before God, but atheism itself is neither pro-social nor anti-social and it's morally blank. Atheism is a social non-entity which is probably why atheism appeals greatly to people with autism and autistic traits.
Yes, but if it wasn't for the BBC what would intelligent people watch on TV?
Channel 5? Sky? ITV? The great thing about the mandatory fee and limiting market forces in TV is that you will get programmes which are not made to the lowest common denominator. Socialism and Capitalism reverse in television. Socialism ensures quality and sophistication whereas Capitalist tele is for degenerate thickos on council estates.
Yes, even though it'd probably send us all back into recession as some of the most ambitious and talented people I know are on cocaine and the economy would crash if we lost them all at once.
Maybe if we could exempt cocaine and focus on the purely loserish drugs, or gradually bring in testing so people can clean up at a faster rate then they're getting sacked.
And this is why trust is so important. Because love proper is an adventure and such a massive gamble you need a partner you can trust. In real love the confident are allowed to keep their authentic personality - which form both the spice of the relationship and the bones of contention - and the thrill of things depends on some mystery and conflict existing between a man and a woman.
Yet yes-men couples and the bullied and the controlled don't know anything about love and trust. You can't force or coerce trust as it is not knowing and proving the other person is on your side, it is believing that they've got your back, it's a question of faith. And as soon as anyone tries to bring trust into the world of facts and evidence it is instantly destroyed and so is the love.
Without confidence love won't be an adventure because you'll never brave the risk of it being so, through insecurity of yourself and the relationship you will disguise and fear every judgement and difference that exists between you - you will become couples of "yes, dear" and her rolling eyes - and all the interesting and authentic personality will dry up in a contemptible struggle of dullardry to the end.
Adventure. Man embraces in woman all that is not himself, and woman embraces in man all that is not herself. Love is nothing without stepping into uncharted territory. Love is nothing without the new reality through which you escape the mundanities of ordinary life: Love is like a drug.
I'm only saying this because it's a given that we shouldn't be paying to benefits to build houses in Romania.
However, I can remember when I was young people being happy to leave the factories behind and indulge in the economy of financial services, the public sector, the shopping mall, and the nonsense degree... Put it this way if you could take today's youth and put them in a time machine and replace the workers and management of British Leyland etc in the 1970s there would have been no need for Thatcher in the 1980s.
We only needed them to work because of the old stereotype that the British won't work a proper job. And it is an old stereotype. People have been profoundly affected by the Great Recession, especially the young, and it's no longer true to say that our people will not work a proper job.
Obstinance_Works Forum Posts (3,514)
RE: Do you believe in The Rapture?
We all need our swords of Damocles without which the times resemble the habits of a selfish and irresponsible workaday drifter.