[last-minute insertion] TaN: In the New York Times editorial, titled “China’s campaign against its nomads” in The Philippine STAR‘s July 22, 2015 issue, the article alleges that China has been engaging or embarking in a campaign to herd nomadic people into townships with the lure of electricity, health care, and schools, because they want to “modernize” the nomads lifestyle and provide them a better alternative and better future. I am sure that, without implying that there may be malice involved, China is taking pity and sincerely trying to make the nomad’s lives better and enjoy the benefits modernization has to offer but… Let us take these “benefits” one at a time.
First, electricity…It is not generally known that most of our recent or “modern” lifestyle diseases experienced a dramatic skyrocketing uptick when we increased our usage of it. Most of us are either ignorant of this correlation or are in denial or just plain too adamant to acknowledge the relationship. One of the most recent vindications is the “new discovery” of a type III diabetes (mellitus) where a marked sharp increase in blood sugar can be observed — in certain (more) sensitive individuals — whenever any electrical appliance or device is operated within the vicinity of the “diabetic” person.
In an experiment, the sensitive is in an isolated room and, in the next room, someone turns on an electrical device or gadget. The blood sugar is monitored and there is very significant and noticeable increase in blood sugar at the very precise moment the electrical device is turned on and drops back to normal as soon as the said device is turned off. This is undeniable proof that there is a detrimental or negative impact of electricity on a person’s physiology. [Note: To be fair, it must be known that there are two forms of electricity — direct and alternating current — where one is bad for health while the other is neutral, and we happen to “choose” and use the wrong form.]
Next, health care…For health care, conventional or mainstream (allopathic) health care is not only ineffective but often detrimental to health. It is designed and intended to keep the population “sickly and dependent” on western medicine — because it will not make (good) business sense to cure patients of diseases and medical conditions when it is (much) more profitable to keep patients perpetually sick and the immune system weak or under constant siege (by environmental pollution and stress and by toxic chemical pharmaceuticals).
Last…schools…It has been the experience that so-called modern formal education is not really addressing or pursuing the noble purpose for which it was created — which is to educate. Education is of two forms: teaching and training. The first is about imparting knowledge on values and good qualities that make good citizens and people, while the other is to impart knowledge to increase the chances, if not to guarantee, getting a job. The former makes good people while the latter makes good workers (which only benefit the capitalist, although not all capitalist are greedy, inconsiderate, insensitive, and generally no-good).
These three so-called benefits are not truly benefits if one considers both the reason behind the government’s “goodwill” and the long-term impact (like losing one’s culture and traditions, one’s heritage, one’s identity), and in exchange for what?
TaN: The next big step/phase in the global “divide-and-conquer” scheme of the ultimate New World Order game just made its debut in the United States of America a couple of weeks ago. We started with implementing the “politically correct” scheme where people must be very conscious of their language and “branding” of others — like chairperson, congresswoman, and doktora (among the vernacular terminology of the different nations).
FYI — in the words of a well-known and well-loved cartoon character — there “ain’t no such aminal“. These “politically correct” terms are just a ploy to get people to be conscious about genderization of titles and addresses and have no basis. Titles and addresses are gender-neutral; they do not discriminate between the genders. It is people who put “color” to terminologies.
Titles or positions such as chairman, just because it ends with “man”, does not necessarily mean refer to gender but rather that the occupant is a human being, a member of mankind or humanity. The same goes with congressman, spokesman, fisherman, and even policeman. The reason why they end with “man” is because their roles are (by tradition) filled by men or males. But ever since these recent years, more and more women are accommodated and accepted into such traditionally male jobs or roles but it does not necessitate to “genderize” the titles or positions just to “emphasize” that the individual is a female.
Moreover and to make things worse and more absurd, we even went overboard and started to “invent” or “feminize” these traditionally male-occupied or -dominated jobs or roles, such as janitress, directress, ambassadress, and one of the most ridiculous…gentlewoman.
And when we thought that things could not get even more absurd, some smart-alecky person/s came up with the most inane yet “politically neutral” titles and roles and began using “gender neutral” terms, such as spokesperson, chairperson, and whatever-person.
The emergence of political correctness, in fact, achieved the opposite and even exacerbated the awareness of gender discrimination. People became more concerned with using the “politically correct” terms rather than focusing on what is important. We became obsessed with being gender-sensitive when the contrary became more glaring.
All in all, let us not waste precious time and effort bickering over such trivial and often imbecilic concerns as to be gender-sensitive and politically correct. Call a spade a spade and get on with what is more important (and frequently more urgent).
Focusing on the superficial and shallow is one of the major diversionary and squid tactics of the global power elite to achieve world domination and control. Let us not play into their hands. In fact, let us not even play their game…PERIOD!
TaN: A leader who is indispensable is not a good leader. Leadership is a fleeting and one should not “cling” to it as if it were private property. Even if one is the best person for the role, sooner or later, there will come a time that one must step down and give way to “young blood” or when the situation or circumstances changed and your specific leadership skills are no longer apt or have become irrelevant.
A good leader knows when it is time to go. But a (not-so-good) leader that makes him/herself indispensable has self-esteem issues. S/he feels a need to be needed, to be important at the expense of others (ensuring a continuous stay in power and influence) to feed his/her ego, to create a vacuum need for his “services” so as to exercise control and domination of others. This is not a leader but a leech, a parasite, an empty person with a void that can be fill only with and by the continued dependence — a mendicancy — of others on him.
However, just because a good leader knows when to let go, it does not mean that it must be abrupt. There should be a gradual pre-succession orientation period where the successor is given time and opportunity to orient him/herself for the role and with an eventual (graceful) departure too.
Finally, for want of a better statement, I must quote the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy when he once said (and I paraphrase), A good leader is measured by how much s/he has improved the lives of the poorest of the poor of his/her people. The lives of the wealthy do not need help but rather those of the poor, the indigent, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, those who were left behind, those who society has not just neglected but has forgotten and abandoned. This is what a good leader is for.
TaN: A wealthy person is only so because /she has more of the things others put a (significant) value or worth to, but once the value is shifted or transferred to other things, the wealthy person ceases to be wealthy. This is not true wealth. True wealth is independent of the whims of man. True wealth is beyond the subjectivism of man. True wealth is and can never be based on man’s decision as to which physical entity shall be awarded the extraordinary “privilege and honor” of being used as an instrument of measurement of value. True wealth is abstract and does not require the recognition of man. True wealth is wealth regardless of man.
The wealth as defined or regarded by man is but an illusion and an arbitrary value without basis except his own severely limited or restricted, greed-and-rarity-based, irrational, and unrealistic and usually unsecurable (i.e., can be stolen or lost) concept of what is “valuable or important” — which is often a physical entity. True wealth is immeasurable and infinite. It is cannot be misplaced or stolen. It never diminishes. Instead, it increases and spreads over time and is neither affected over or by distance nor does it age or become irrelevant.
True wealth is a treasure that defies all temporal forces, aging or tarnishing, and any and all forms of damage or decay. True wealth endures and transcends.
A truly wealthy person is not one with an abundance of money or gold or any physical measure that we assign importance or value to but one who is virtuous and has (true) friends — not just fair weather friends — for he shall never want. He has just enough physical wealth as not to cause envy in others but enough for his needs (and an occasional want). His other needs are or will be provided by his friends.
Basing wealth on trivial physical objects, such as gold, lasts only if and when people still agree that the physical wealth are still “valuable”. Once preference shifts to another entity, all the accumulated “wealth” instantly becomes trash — as in the case of the value of money in economies that experience runaway inflation (where it cost millions of the local currency to purchase an egg or a wheelbarrow-full of paper currency to purchase a kilo of rice).
Our contemporary concept of wealth is fleeting and unstable and can be misplaced, taken away, or (worse) be devalued (i.e., can not just be diminished in value but lose value completely). In fact, there are many places where (our conventional definition or concept of wealth is entirely unknown or alien) — like the remote tribes recently discovered in the remote or isolated high mountains in South America. To them, wealth is their children/family, their freedom, their community, their skills, their customs and traditions, their belief system, and whatever they hold dear but certainly not gold, not currency, not (trivial) possessions, not even our petty titles and (academic) degrees or any of what we normally consider as signs, manifestations, or trappings or tokens of our need to feel secure, powerful, and important.
If such diverse or diametrically opposite concepts or views of what wealth truly is, it can only be either one or both are incorrect. It also — for those who truly seek the truth — begs the question, What then is true wealth?