What's a God to a non-believer?

The Great Depression in the 1930s is seen to be the worse economic collapse of recent human history. Total world GDP fell by 15%, in comparison to the Great Recession (2007) that saw GDP drop by less than 1%. The reason for recessions is unknown; there are theories that markets are in a constant cycle of “bust and boom”, where we have prosperous periods, and recessions. This cycle has repeated itself monotonously for hundreds of years, apart from two that stand out (since they aren’t due to war or from backlash of other major recessions); the Great Depression and the Great Recession. 

If you haven’t seen “The Big Short”, I'd highly recommend it. It will cover a lot of the more in-depth economical knowledge of the Great Recession, since I’m at no pedestal to talk from.

Now we have the economics out the way, onto the politics. When the banks failed in 2009, the Government bailed them out. When the Government failed to bail out the smaller banks, these were either liquidated or bought off by the much larger banks. This is all because of the fraud that exploited itself inside the housing market. In 2006, economic experts said the housing market was too big to fail. When it failed, they said the economic climate would bounce back because the banks were to big to fail. They did. The biggest banks, for example JP Morgen Chase & Co, bought up the rest of the failing banks and created a super bank. There are about four major banks in the US right now, they set their limits and desires, they control themselves. The banks are our Kings to us because we, as a mob, panic and worry, and when we do we go to our King for stability. This King of our controls our life without knowing it. And then money is God, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent, but used in the wrong way by the King; exploiting the idea of God for they’re own personal gain. They make money an excuse for pain and happiness, seeing money as pointless because it isn’t money, it’s a ball and chain. 

Human beings in a mob, stumbling around life, with profit being the only goal. However, profit isn’t the problem, money isn’t the problem, it’s the value of what it means. I don’t mean that £20 is worth x amount of good and services, but the reliability of it. Consumerism and materialism is seen as a life condition that is mandatory. We buy things we don’t need to feel happiness because of the money it was worth. Life isn’t about that. Life is about enjoying the moments free of time and space, enjoying the present, regardless of stability, money or services. 

Excusing my life coaching session, and onwards with criticising the social construct of creation. I don’t see myself as a Marxist, Left Wing or Liberal. Neither do I see myself on the opposite side either, but that’s regardless of my point. But there is a sole problem that connects all the dots. Inequality; inequality that determines your class, identity and life. Inequality has reached the same point (approximately 25%) now, like it was in 1929. This is after the Great Recession, meaning as the dust cleared and the banks swallowed up themselves in some sort of cannibal soup, the rich got richer. I don’t mean the middle class, nor the top 1%, but the 0.0001%. The unknown billionaires who’ve made their money by destroying the lives of those underneath them. The housing market crashing helped them, the banks failing helped them, because ultimately, they are the ones controlling this. They planned the entire thing because they knew when the ball dropped, they could profit some more. I don’t believe in evil in the world, but to destroy millions of lives without a motive, but for money, for control, is the closest it can come to. And when evil comes, the rest won’t prosper, but unite and destroy. If money is our God, then those bankers are the demons with strings in their hands and a knife in our back.

In 2006, economic experts said the housing market was too big to fail. When it failed, they said the banks were to big to fail. They did. Now we only have one thing left, money. But money is too big to fail? When it does, it will decimate the world we know, and humanity will have nothing left; the illusion will be shattered, we will stop believing. Human Beings in a mob, what’s a mob to a king? What’s a king to a God? What’s a God to a non-believer who don’t believe in anything.

Exodus

The Middle East has constantly been a zone of conflict and controversy. From the Crusades in the late 10th Century, to the bombing of ISIS in Iraq and Syria today, the Arab World has been in disarray. Now, we have to bear the biggest migration crisis since World War Two, 350000 people from Syria alone are seeking asylum, and there are both plenty more from other war-stricken zones and also those who haven't seeked asylum. Millions are homeless, thousands are dead, and countries are torn. There is no end in sight, only hope that leaving will bring them to a better land; faithful, fairer, free.

The UK has decided the best way to incorporate and solve the migrant problem though going straight to the source. The country currently accepts 5000 refugees from Turkish refugee camps, those who are most in need of help. The rest of Europe, unfortunately, doesn't get a choice. The refugees travel over the Mediterranean and brave the seas to reach the mainland. Some refugees go to Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Austria, and the largest proportion going to Germany. But at what point do these refugees stop being war-escaping victims, but masters of opportunity. Travelling through 11 countries to reach Sweden because they have the best social welfare inside the Schengen Area makes you an economic migrant, not a refugee. This problem is also exacerbated by the amount of Turks or Middle-Easterners who simply want a free pass to a more democratic state. Now we have a major problem, with millions of unassimilated refugees collecting in ghettos across Europe, with no intention of going back. 

Another split in the cultural dimensions of the union of Europe is in population differences. Italy and Germany are aging populations. Simply, this means they have, and will have, a large majority of their population as over 65. They can't work, and further take money from pensions that the younger, smaller proportion, are working to get. This leads to incredible instability and will lead to the country losing their population, slowly, but surely. The refugee crisis opens an opportunity for them; to incorporate the young asylum seekers means they can work and hopefully even out the age differences. On the other hand, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary (etc...) are not at that state of agist demographics. These countries, and countless others, are in a fortunate position of self-sustainability population-wise, and don't need a hyperbole of refugees living and settling in their countries. Since the EU is a free-movement zone, once a refugee is in, they can travel anywhere, and like stated before, some go to the countries with the best social welfare. These people deserve freedom, but to what extent?

Morality is the crux of human development, whether stand in times of controversy or sit in times of comfort. The issue with the refugee crisis is that the solution is simple, but the execution is morally hard. Do we stop people running from an area of conflict, or do we allow them to join us to unite for a better cause? Using pure logic, a computer would chose the former, whereas the person you would want leading us would chose the latter. Because human lives are worth more than a computer can understand; each one is just as precious as the last. A simple analogy would be with the contrast between Trump and Trudeau. What Trump says is factually correct, and he very well might be correct in his belief of making America great again, but is that in spite of millions of Mexicans being worse off? And Trudeau is morally pure, wanting to accept and assimilate 25000 "new Canadians" from Syria, but will that be possible without tension or harm to the nation? The choices of going either way are difficult, because there is no answer, no results. The UK, in my opinion, has chosen both the safe and sensible option, going cyborg. In the UK, we can carefully incorporate refugees into the country, knowing they need help, and also protecting them from crossing the Mediterranean. Personally, I would accept more than 5000 refugees, knowing they need help. But I don't know all the facts and figures, and my opinion would be bias towards morality, which unfortunately some members of the government seem to neglect. Morality isn't a choice to turn off or on, it's the decision to accept other people matter, other people love, other people hurt. 

Today, we have to bear the biggest migration crisis since World War Two. This War saw a brave few stand in times of controversy and in times of challenge. They fought and died so we lived in a world without fascism and dictatorship, without racism and without hurt. Those men and women fought so we can make the choice whether to accept morality, because without them there would be no decision. In World War Two, migrants travelled from Europe to Africa, escaping the Nazis and war. Europeans needed help, and Africa did what was needed. They did what was hard, and they achieved what was great. They helped in our time of need. It's time we pay them back.

The men and women who served didn't fight and die to see their country rejecting the freedoms they fought for. They died for a choice, and that choice is ours' now; let's not let them down.

A known devil is better than an unknown angel

Brexit. What a mess. 


The EU started off in 1951 as a more complex acronym, the ECSC, and then simplifying into the EEC in 1958, before finally setting down to the simple EU we all know and apparently don't love, in 1993. Since then, it has become the largest single market, flourishing nations in the East of Europe and ultimately making Europe a quasi-federal country. However, as the acronyms became simpler, the Union grew more complicated than ever fathomed. Now, the EU is a political tyrant, controlling and setting laws to all 28 of its member states; central economics of the past have become miniscule for the future. Much like the acronyms.

So on the 23rd June 2016, the people of the United Kingdom couldn't bear living in a Union that has the prospect of soon being called 'E'. 

The only problem with initiating Article 50 is that no state has left the EU before. Both remaining and leaving had complete unknowns, where politicians gambled away their careers... apart from May, she somehow came up on top, but we'll get to that later. The night of the 23rd saw the pound sterling not come on top however. Remain voters then saw this as a clear win for them, as something bad economically had actually happened and they had facts to support this. Unfortunately, this is not the case, it's not a win. The pound dropped not because leaving the EU will lead to the Rapture, but because of instability; since no one actually knows what to do from now on. 

The future is now a void for the United Kingdom. Not a bad void, but just an unknown. The United Kingdom was in an abusive relationship, and 52% decided that leaving would eventually make the UK succeed and become an independant women, whereas 48% decided that at least they're pummeling is consistent; a known devil is better than an unknown angel. 

What now for Europe, then? May has said that Brexit talks won't start until the end of 2016, and that there's no need to rush anything. Apart from when she said it should be quick. I'm not saying she contradicted herself, but a break-up, even a divorce, should not mean the relationship carries on for 6 months until one of the partners sees the other going psychopathic. May, having 2/1 odds on being said psychopath, because it can't be Germany who elected one, definitely succeeded. She beat off Johnson... and Gove and Leadsom; prominent Leave voters, so an achievement to be proud of. However, it could be only short term significance. She has the stage for 3.5 years, where she has to manage the break up of the largest financial sector from the largest trade union. Even Leave voters didn't expect to see positives in less than 5 years, meaning May has a time bomb, and no real way of knowing how to defuse it. Johnson pulled out... which could be seen as political tactics, knowing he can run in 2020 when May has sailed the ship into inevitable turbulence. From 2020, he can focus, not being blinded by unknowns or voids. From 2020, Johnson can run the United Kingdom he wanted to run, not manage a break-up.

The relationship analogy, one which I've relentlessly used, is because that's exactly what the EU is. The UK just doesn't feel like it benefits them anymore, and with democracy, the majority seeks Leave. Unfortunately, just like a relationship, the feeling is purely irrational, love (or the break up of) doesn't have facts or figures or projected outcomes with graphs. Of course there is initial despair, but afterwards, the future is unknown. 

The debates and conversations over the past few months has been an exercise to show that it doesn't matter, and won't matter. There will be no drastic change, there will be no rise in power or crumble of states. Instead, Western civilisation has plateaued to a point where issues such as the UK leaving the EU are meaningless, because anything big enough to affect one will affect the other. Leaders have changed, policies have been amended, but the life of you and I has, and will, stay the same. Unless the Rapture actually does happen.

"And do not fear those...

...who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28

Approximately 4 hours before writing this, there was a terrorist attack in Munich. Eight people were killed. They did not provoke, nor seek evil; they did not choose their end. These people were innocent bystanders; our friends, our family, our colleagues and our peers. These eight people died for a cause that we will never surrender. They died for our beliefs of strength, unity, and hope. These beliefs will not be lost, but made stronger in the time of challenge, and tonight we shall stand stronger than ever.

This has happened time and time again in recent month are years. Terrorism has been around since people have been there to be terrorised. The act of terror is used for political gain, attacking a small amount of the civilian population to press the government to give into demands. Terrorism is wrong. I say this as an obvious fact, but terrorists see themselves as heroes; martyrs especially, being seen as legends by their own. This is not the case, as killing innocent people is what excels the hatred for the terrorists and furthers them into a corner that will eventually see their entire objective quashed. Terrorism, in basic terms, aims to deplete the morale of a country into suppression until there is nothing left but to give in. But in the history of time, terrorism has never succeeded. There is still a Northern Ireland, there are still troops deployed in Iraq, and there is still hope in the darkest of places.

So why do terrorists go through with such violent and unmoralistic actions, knowing there is no worth and no end? They have nothing left, no other choices. Their goal can only be entertained by the actions of violence. Terrorism is pursued by those who are psychotic, those who are desperate, and those who are weak. 

As I end this, the death count has reached nine. These nine people didn't choose to die, but were killed in a protest of peace. There have been greater controversies, there have been worse attacks, but tonight, these nine people are the world's heroes, and we will stand by them.

"In the beginning...

...God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

For thousands of year, man has been ruled by a God. The legislature, executive and judiciary were all in one person; the monarchy. They were a direct voice for God, chosen to lead. 400 years ago was the end of this rule, where man was able to think for himself and to express other opinions. Cromwell and Newton and Galileo and Columbus, to name a few, were some of the minds that led to the Age of Enlightenment. Man would finally question God.

Furthermore, what happened in the 1600s wasn't anti-religious, but pro-human. People started interpreting the Bible differently, and saw the word of God as figurative instead of literal. In the past 400 years since, humanity has exponentially exploded in the fields of medicine, technology, invention and craft. 

The problem before the Age of Enlightenment wasn't God, religion or any faith structure, but was the oppressive mainstream ideas. These ideas, taken as facts, that could have so easily been opinions, conquered the world, since the power of the world was held by so few. People were chastised if they spoke out, or went against the status quo; this wasn't punishment by God, but rather people who were wanted to stay in power through the mainstream idea. 

The reason for this monotonous history lesson is due to the parallels that can be seen with today. Instead of the Church, we have the media, and instead of a God, we have money. The media, left or right, tabloid or news channel, are all bias. Which is perfectly fine, as contrasting opinions are what define government, politics, and people. However, the news media today, monopolies that control more monopolies that invest and merge with more, is the problem. Issues are reused, nonsense is what fills TV channels, and at no point are real problems being discussed. We live in a time where climate change is 100% undeniable, yet almost no Western governments have a fail safe, a precaution to save the world. This is due to the lack of a public push for the issue. And there are a lot of issues like this. Of course, there is Greenpeace and the Green Party and definitely movement on this particular problem, but that is negligible compared the the actual population. Again, this revolves back to how the media isn't portraying the problem. Instead they rehash the same gibberish that's inside the box. 

We are at a crossroads in time. We can go one way, or another, and seek different results with different desires. But the problem isn't whether to decide to go forwards, backwards, left or right, but to move. We are at a standstill. Now is when humanity has a chance to change the future, for the better, and instead of sitting idling waiting for the next generation, we can actually make change. The problem isn't with money or power or monopolies or even the media; it's greed. And there lies the epicentre of problems with the world. Personal gain, profit, the 1%, aren't evil ideas, they're actually partly a factor for why the Age of Enlightenment happened. Only when power is gained at the expense of others is when it becomes a human flaw. 

When you teach a population only half of all there is, that doesn't make them uneducated, ignorant or bias. They use the facts they've learned to form opinions, which is human nature. But oppressive facts make foolish opinions, as there's another untold side to every story. Only being taught half of a story is what makes people a believer of nonsense, and then the vessel for God has ultimate power.

Genesis

Politics isn't only what governs you and I. It isn't only the executive, legislature and judiciary. It isn't only the ideologies that direct our views: politics is the relationship between man, government and nation. The evolution of humanity has been most shaped by man's belief in the democratic process, informing science, engineering, welfare and more. Every realm of our civilisation is in direct reference to politics; education, law and order, economics all thrive in the relationship between man. This dynamism and combination of change, connections and collectivism is what inspires my interest in politics.

The information age that we live in today gives every citizen of the world a pedestal to express, to voice their opinions and speak what humanity has struggled for centuries to make free. We live in an age where social media can be used to vote for a preferred musician, yet, governmental voting is at an all time low. In 2005, the voting turnout for 18-24 year olds was 38.2%, but just thirteen years prior it was double that. My generation is one of which complains and vocalises more about their lives than any other, yet chooses to delegate the change, rather than to make the change. The youth that doesn't care today will become the society that doesn't care tomorrow. My aim, not just through this blog, but through life, is to reveal to young people that politics matters