The Observer or the Participator; how to deal with new cultures, individuals that are not native to your homeland?
We are only addressing this issue due to various emails we have received from our subscribers (mostly in Europe, especially northern Europe) regarding the changing landscape they now face. It pains us to see these very open-minded and easy-going Europeans change and become more aggressive because in many cases, they feel they have no option left but to fight for what they believe in, as they feel the land they love is being taken away.
There are two perspectives, and as you know, we tend to favour the observer perspective as opposed to the participator perspective.
From the observer perspective, the solution is simple.
The observer looks at and assess the situation; he/she determine it regarding risk to reward ratio. Nothing else comes into the equation. No pride, no sense of being patriotic, no ego, etc.practise, etc. and then a decision is made based on the outcome of that analysis. However, we know this is easier said than done for many as it takes practice to adopt and implement this kind of thinking into practise.
The observer understands there is no such thing as a homeland because if one goes way way back in time, the land in most cases belonged to someone else and changed hands many times over the centuries and millennia Unfortunately due to our short life spans, 200-500 years seems like a long time, when in fact it’s not. Thus an observer would not dwell on the why did this come about question. Instead he would look at the, “what can I do now that it has happened scenario”. If the risk to reward ratio favoured a fight, he would fight if not he would move on. In most cases a fight is not warranted when adopting the role of an observer. An observer observes and does not interact. To fight would mean to interact, lose objectivity and generate a lot of stress and the observer is allergic to all of these things.
In some instances, even the best of observers could be potentially dragged into down to the participator level. When you are at this level there are only two options. Fight or flee. You flee because you cannot fight, and you fight because you feel that you could win.
If you choose the fight option then you must be ruthless, you must press and press till you completely subdue the enemy, till the enemy is not only terrified of you presence, but the mere mention of your name makes them quiver.
In other words, you do not fight a battle; you fight a war and fight till you win. A battle is one fight of many in a war. Winning a battle will not win you the war.
Please understand that the gateway to Europe was opened by those in power. They knew well in advance what problems would be created by allowing a lot of poorly educated individuals into the country. It is the same group that has conducted a similar operation in the USA. The idea is to cause strife, when there is strife people do not think and very tough encroaching laws can be enacted which help those in power make billions and billions of dollars while fleecing the innocent. In most cases the enemy is not who you think it is, in many instances it is the very person or persons you think you should trust the most. Again the saying what you think you know could be dangerous to your heath comes to mind.
Try not to look at the people who you dislike and disagree with through the lens of religion, but through the lens of education. There are always exceptions to the rule, you will find a very educated person who uses religion to their benefit, to incite crowds, to cause trouble and this is all this for monetary gains. But in general, the extremists in any religious group are almost always the uneducated. Uneducated people regardless of religion are the biggest source of trouble, and when you let in uneducated people into an educated system you ask for nothing but chaos.
If those who never had anything before can now have something without working or having to work, they will milk the system dry. That is the end of the story. So to end the problem you have to cut the supply of milk completely, no matter how brutal or oppressive the laws might appear to the outsider. Again as observers this is not our mode or choice of operation. However, at TI we have also stated that if you are going to draw your sword, then you need to strike a devastating blow that will never be forgotten. If you cannot do that you will be better of re-sheathing the blade and moving on. Or like one character in a movie put it, fight like you mean it or don’t fight at all.
The following scenario illustrates one of the options available to the participator
If you stay in my house then I have the right to tell you how you should conduct yourself while you live there and vice versa. You cannot come into my house and tell me what I should feed you, when I should feed you and then suddenly start to tell me what time I should get up and go to sleep and how I should dress up, etc, .etc. If this happens I should instantaneously toss you out of the exit that is nearest at hand, through the window or through the door. I should not negotiate with you, ask you why, etc, .etc. The game is over.
Thus for those of you that want to take this route, understand that if you start to fight for you rights because you now feel that the newly arrived immigrants are posing a problem, etc, etc, then you have to do whatever it takes to make sure the standards of your nation are maintained, even if it means the imposition of laws that might appear harsh to those who are not native to the land. There is no other way. If you go to many third world countries, you will immediately notice that this is how the law operates in those places and it works remarkably well.
For example, no exemption should be made to those who cannot speak the language of the land by putting out information in various languages other than the rules and regulations of the land. If a severe crime is committed such as rape, murder, brutal assault, etc, .the punishment should be so harsh that it scares the hell out of all future would be offenders. One example is to deport the entire family (brother, sister, mother, cousin, etc) .but the perpetrator is sent home only after serving out their jail sentence.
If someone tries to use religion to start a war with the main predominant native religion or religions of that country, the entire group of perpetrators should be thrown out of the country, even if they number in the thousands. No second chance should be given. Again go to a third world country and try to challenge the religion of that nation and see what happens. Every developed nation was once an undeveloped nation. Religious fights and wars are the most dangerous of all confrontations and should never be allowed to gain traction. We are not mentioning specific religions for a reason. It is not the religion that is the problem; it is stupidity and lack of education that is the main problem. An educated mind is a free mind and a free mind has no interest in seeking mindless conflicts. Educated does not necessarily refer to a university degree, though that would probably be one of the easiest filters to put into place.
To end we would like to emphasize that we would prefer the observer role, where we assess the situation and then make our decision based on the risk to reward ratio. We will end with this sentence.
Nothing remains unchanged, everything changes and change is inevitable. You do not fight change; you either adapt and flourish or die resisting.