To the Occupy movement: Occupy yourself – an overview of the ”This changes everything” Part 2.

“10 ways the occupy movement changes everything”

1. It names the source of the crisis.

“The problems of the 99% are caused by Wall Street greed, corrupt banks, and a corporate take-over of the political system”

Indeed, much of the decisions that are influencing our lives today were made on Wall Street and with financial interests in mind. There is no doubt that this point needs to be explored to determine what has really happened. Not to 'bring people to justice', but to determine how our system is malfunctioning.

When put into this context it is obvious that the problem is much more wide spread than Wall Street and The United States of America. Not only is the malfunction of our economic system global, but the very interests that have brought us here are tied to all levels of society and existent within all human beings. Therefore the question of finding a solution (or even naming the 'source of the crisis') to this global hardship is as well a point of rethinking our administration and legislation as it is a point of looking into the very nature of man. How else can we find a solution to the global social situation which holds in place the current conflicts that manifest the competition that shapes our world?

This task is as much mine as it is everyone else's. Therefore I am unable to personally define my responsibility being fulfilled merely by demanding change from others – I must be part of the people who actually and practically live the necessary changes. Only this will bring about a world that is lived differently, not only legislated differently and run by a different administration.

One thing is clear. In order to have a constructive look at our fundamentals, we do need a break. Changes in the current economic system, spearheaded by Wall Street, is a bridge to that.

2. It creates a clear vision of the world we want

“We can create a world that works for everyone, not just the wealthiest 1%.”

This is a very noble and worthwhile goal to pursue! However, integrity, honesty and willingness to do what is necessary to be done (a thorough and a complete job) are required to bring about a real solution instead of a mere compromise. To emphasize on the seriousness of this point within our solution-seeking-paradigm I must point out that from a culture historical stand point the human society is, and has always been since our early egalitarianism, an ever lasting compromise between two(or more) sides of a single conflict – "losers and victors" in a war with our own kind.

We also cannot assume that those who are currently calling out for change are the first ones to do so. That they are the first to try and end the on going war. It is good to remember that we have tried to end war even with war - with the 'war to end all wars'. So there is bound to be some confusion within our habit of doing 'the wrong thing' with the 'best of intentions'.

This said, and to seek some clarity to the confusion, I am reminded of three general quotations that have traveled with humanity for quite some time. First, “learn from your history” which works both on a personal level as well as on the level of the human society (which in the end are the one and the same). This advice is impossible to follow without taking to heart another wisdom that we have passed around for generations, “man, know thyself”. To emphasize how important the combination of the two is here is the third quote, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

We have tried to find, or at least thought we have tried to find, “a world that works for everyone” for a long time. This is not to say that such a world can't be created, but to point out that the creation thereof might be quite intricate.

I agree that the solution this world needs is the answer to the question “what is a world that works for everyone?”. I will add that ”the clear vision” must also then encompass what we can support each other to be and become, not just demands for the Wall Street and 'the elite'.

3. It sets a new standard for public debate

“Those advocating policies and proposals must now demonstrate that their ideas will benefit the 99%. Serving only the 1% is no longer sufficient.“

I agree with transparency, however this also requires for the 99% to demonstrate interest in common affairs. There are countless reasons why most of humanity has lost interest in our common affairs, which is yet another point worth investigating and finding a solution to - at least each for themselves.

4. It presents a new narrative.

“The solution is no longer to starve government, but to free society and government from corporate dominance.”

A perspective to the "new narrative" would be to note that the corporation was the vehicle for the individual to free him/herself from the public rule. Before this, the government, as it now stands, was the vehicle by which society freed itself from the monarchies and the nobility. If we now use something else to free ourselves from the corporation instead of looking at the fundamentals that create this reoccurring cycle, we will only end up repeating it again.

We can observe that since our early egalitarianism humanity has always been bound to something out of real, artificial or perceived necessity - be it a king or a government protecting the people against other kings and governments or a corporation supplying our daily necessities. The one who has supplied a solution to our current problems has been the one we have been bound to and the one we have granted privilege. Within this context it would be wise to investigate what creates our dependence on hierarchies and what within hierarchies creates our institution of privilege? Again a question which has an answer encompassing both the personal and the societal perspective, as the formation of hierarchies is always about the many giving up their responsibility by concentrating of power.

5. It creates a big tent

“We, the 99%, are made up of people of all ages, races, occupations, and political beliefs, and we are learning to work together with respect.”

I agree that the potential is there – the results are dependent on ourselves.

I see that this training in cooperation should be continued everywhere and with everyone. Unless this very understanding is extended to everyone, even 'the elite', we will create yet another conflict bent on winning instead of creating a solution.

If anything, fixing our system and the world is a group activity from which no one should be excluded.

6. It offers everyone a chance to create change.

“No one is in charge. Anyone can get involved and make things happen.”

Even though designations of leadership were not given within the movement, it doesn't mean that hierarchies did not form.

If ”no one is in charge” is a reference to the form of counsels in the movement, I have the following perspective:

Counsels that make decisions by consensus are still vulnerable to social hierarchy – someone being “in charge”. It is axiomatic that a group should follow a single view within their activities to avoid confusion and/or becoming split and scattered. Therefore it is important to also determine how the group should have a consensus. For example defining the what needs to be considered in finding an answer to a question would make the counsel an evaluation and a double-checking mechanism. Each participant would seek to make sure that everything is being considered instead of determining whether or not they agree with the given proposal. If the consensus is not about the conclusions that lead to a decision, it might be based upon nothing more than the most charismatic speech.

Also within the context of items 2, 3 and 5 on this list, it would be wise to determine what EXACTLY happened within occupy in terms of this point. My experience was not that ”no one was in charge”. This unique event can act as a foundation for many great realizations if it is treated as it really occurred.

7. It is a movement, not a list of demands.

“The call for transformative structural change, not temporary fixes and single-issue reforms, is the movement's sustaining power.”

If my car breaks down, do I contribute by standing next to the mechanic who is doing the repairs demanding for a thorough job? What if the engine is so complex that even the mechanic doesn't know how it operates, and thus is able to make it run for a few years more at best. Wouldn't a true contribution then be to start investigating how the engine truly operates and to assist in its reverse engineering? Then, once all the assumptions, ideas and beliefs about the engine have been brought into accordance with reality, the actual repairs can begin.

8. It combines the local and the global.

“People are setting their own local agendas, tactics, and aims. But we also share solidarity, communication, and vision at the global level.”

I agree, things need to be viewed globally. After all, there is only one humanity and it is global.

9. It offers an ethic and practice of deep democracy and community.

“Patient decision-making translates into wisdom and common commitment when every voice is heard. Occupy sites are communities where anyone can discuss grievances, hopes, and dreams in an atmosphere of mutual support.”

Atmosphere of mutual support is something we sorely need and within such an environment much can be achieved.

The list of topics 'grievances', 'hopes' and 'dreams' should also include 'what really happened'. For example how did the grievances, hopes or dreams come to be and how did the world come to be according to which all the forementioned were formed? Not from a grand philosophical perspective, but from a practical one. This is a vital step towards 'man, know thyself' both on the personal and the societal level.

I have found that much of my own grievances, hopes and dreams have started to change once observed, opened up and shared. Within this process I have applied the very same principle of ”patient decision-making”, but within deciding who I am (patient meaning ”letting every element of me be heard/known”). I have found a sense of self-trust and stability from beneath my confusion of not knowing how and why I came to be who I am – a quality I claim to be a requirement for taking care of another. It makes no difference whether I take care of those around me or if I ”take care of” people I never meet through organizational decision-making, I still have to be able to put myself in their shoes. And how could I put myself into the shoes of another if I do not even know myself?

I must point out that there is a difference between knowing oneself and having an idea about oneself - just to make sure.

10. We have reclaimed our power

“Instead of looking to politicians and leaders to bring about change, we can see now that the power rests with us, Instead of being victims to the forces upending our lives, we are claiming our sovereign right to remake the world.”

I agree, completely. I would also like to give the following perspective: the power that rests within each one can only be understood when we realize that we have always had it.

”I'd rather do something and make a mistake than be frightened into doing nothing. That's the problem back home. Folks have been conned into thinking they can't change the world. Have to accept what is. I'll tell you something, my friends, the world is changing every day. The only question is, who's doing it? ” - Rev. Dexter, Babylon 5.

Do we have now the first opportunity for real change?

When looking back at history we are able to see how war has been the only viable vehicle for change - or conflict, to generalize the term war. Through out history the society of man has been a society of privilege - winners and losers of the conflict that molds society. Much, if not all, of our past and present socioeconomical suffering has been and is caused by unequal access to the resources everyone needs to survive. Going further back in history the problems and suffering has also been created from the lack of these resources, but always the distribution thereof has been determined by our social-economic-religious-political hierarchy of privilege.

Historically our hierarchy – the society of privilege – that determines the access to resources and the direction and priorities of our progress has been justified with everything from personal liberty to divine right. Going far enough in history 'standing against' or even analyzing the hierarchy has been literal 'rebellion against the kingdom of God'. And the history of privilege dates as far as the first known records of human civilization (with a few exceptions within the original peoples).

In the past century the nature of our hierarchy has changed, though it still exists. Ones position within our social-economic-political hierarchy is no longer determined solely by heritage and/or personal merit, our religious hierarchy has lost much of its global meaning and wealth stands as a prerequisite for all other hierarchy-position determining factors to work.

Money in itself is a resource that can concentrate as quickly as it can dissipate – as opposed to gold and silver standards which could take lifetimes to accumulate. Therefore, our society has experienced a growth in the number of hierarchical positions as well as a faster rotation in the people holding those positions. Thus, our 'rulers' and 'superiors' are no longer bloodlines of legends encased in castles but individuals like you an me with varying conditions, physicality, skills, knowledge, information, contacts and backgrounds.

It is said that nowadays in Finland everyone knows each other through 6 or 7 people - where in the 15th century nobody fucking knew the king.

The change within the openess and normalcy of our 'superiors' and 'rulers' has been so dramatic that I argue that we are among the first generations to live within conditions that could actually allow a real analysis of the fundamentals that drive our society - before even constructive criticism had been deemed a heresy. Religious hierarchy can't be analyzed this way if it claims divine right, however this does not overrule co-existence.

With this phenomenon and the increase in standard of living, civil rights and global communication our hierarchy has regionally become much more transparent and open to everyone. Though in many cases it remains available only for the few through immense and brutal competition.

Through the definition of civil rights our species as a collective hierarchy has official admitted to the value of each living individual. Even though this is yet to lead to any conclusive action to stop the abuse of the individual, we are in agreement that action should be taken for the betterment of all.

Through global communication we are increasingly realizing that people share a common humanity regardless of their geographical location. War is therefore becoming an out dated vehicle for change. It is seen more and more that alliances between the people of all nations can be forged with communication. On the level of small to medium enterprices the phenomenon is apparent, whereas on the level of multi-national corporation the global cooperation is often dubious at best.

If this indeed is a time where a real system analysis could be conducted, I see no reason to leave it undone, and no time like the present.

For example the way war forges our current society is embedded deep within the fundamentals of our tradition of victory. Ours is a society where the victor is granted the means to have power to determine the fate of the losers. Quite rarely ruling bodies gather to analyse a problem and to device a solution that is best for the entire society, but to device a solution that is as best as possible for the group represented by their advocates.

Many times an advicate of the establishment, or an advicate of the establishment of a new establishment, sees a problem within society, has a vision for the solution thereof and thinks that public support is required to be granted the power and trust to move things according to the initial vision – as if to answer to the question when facing 'the opposition': you and what army?. Often enough the will to do this has the best of intentions, and often enough because of this, the ends end up justifying the means. Within the historical circumstances of our society this has arguably seemed like the smart thing to do. However, times have changed dramatically.

The generations living within the current conditions, and receiving the winning end of the bargain, actually have an opportunity to realize and to live a social-economic-religious-political system that would start a process of analyzing its fundamentals to one day create a society that would produce a favorable condition for all of its participants. Though this opportunity has come at a high price.

The How-To

This video verbalized the realization that I have been having recently when participating in the activist and the political scenes: the starting point of our attempts to change the world is 'flawed' and 'unclear'.

From this, I have been considering those who have changed the world in the past. A common point within all of them seemed to be that the change, the world, they created was something they already saw, it was something that they already knew to exist and it was something that they already experienced here as themselves. For Gandhi, the freedom of his people was not a debatable point in any way whatsoever. It was the reality of things, and thus all he had to do was to 'set right' a delusion - an illusion of slavery and oppression.

It was said in the video that it is easy to attack, oppose and judge how things currently exist. The inferiority implied by such an arrangement is within the fact that nothing will change untill 'the people opposed' give up to the demands of the people who oppose them. Within the case of Gandhi the situation was different. Gandhi didn't thrive to beat the British, but to empower his own people to give up the idea of their own enslavement. By doing this, the demonstrations and the protests became demonstrations of the state in which everything already existed in instead of putting pressure on 'the opponent'.

Our current situation is different from this even though the same tools can be applied. We are all under the same system, and therefore there is no oppressor to free ourselves from who stands in separation of ourselves. If the system in it's current form is 'broken' and we still abide by its 'broken' rules and values, the oppressor stands within the reasoning of each one, by which each one holds on to the system as is now exists.

Our current situation is also much more complicated. There are very few who actually know how the system functions, how it is 'broken', what is the experience of its manifestation, what is the practical consequence thereof and what would be an actually solution to it. Without this understanding one stands separate from the system and how it really exists, and when standing in seperation one can only bring about a compromise and not a solution.

It is easy to attack, to oppose and to judge the system. It is quite another challenge to walk into the system - to walk into what we as a species have created. It takes hard work and dedication to gain an understanding of how things are through life - through becoming one with and equal to how things are. I have heard many speak about enormously complex things with crystal clear common sense - these people have always been those who have actually lived what they speak of.

It is very easy to get a feeling that for a moment I see, and it is easy to refrain from facing the fact that this feeling can never be translated into a solution, much less something that everyone can understand. It is also easy to start pursuing a dream because of such an experience without ever making sure that what was 'realized' in that singular moment was actually true. Here, the reality and the responsibility that comes with actually changing it is being disregarded and abdicated.

Take a moment to picture what it would be like if our prime minister would hold a public speech where he would explain how he has seen the system to function in his decades of being in the parliament, how he has seen that the system is void of any real solutions, why the situation is how it is, how people suffer because of it and what needs to be done to correct this. What would the impact be?

It is unfortunate that to 'have a permission' to make such an impact has been hidden behind such an effort, and that those who have walked this path refuse to do what is necessary to be done in the fear of loosing all that they worked for – even if they know deep down that it is the right thing to do. However, this is the order in which things stand today. This arrangement was a long time coming. Now it here and it must be faced without fear.

The process of correcting the 'flaws' in the 'grand design of humanity' we refer to as 'the system' takes place at all of its levels. A failed marriage can be as much of a mystery as a failed nation, and the responsibility to direct each part of the system falls into the hands of those who are present. Therefore, each is responsible for the world, and for the part of this world, that they inhabit.

There are no quick fixes and everyone is just one. Therefore the solution must be brought about as a group – from all sides, if you will. It is futile to wait around for a leader or a savior, to wait around or to demand for another to changes the world for me, to go to war with someone or something believing that a victory will solve our issues and to attempt to 'fix' things by myself. I must choose a part of the system and live it into a solution.

To the Occupy movement: Occupy yourself – an overview of the ”This changes everything” Part 1.

I participated in the Occupy movement of my city for three months. During this time I negotiated with the city officials as well as the police, participated in organizing events in terms of ideas, equipment and artists, I participated in the everyday practicality of the camp, did my share to keep the spirit up when things got tough, I wrote many documents, kept in contact with the camps in other cities, acted as the informer for the media and designed and brainstormed the future of the movement according to the resources available to us.

With this it is fair to say that I am not an outside observer to the movement but an actual participant.

A few days ago I acquired the book “This changes everything”. To my surprise I saw that the same problem – or delusion if you will – that we faced also existed in the Occupy Wall Street movement. I have compiled this document to expand on the points that I saw, realized and experienced during my participation. My motive is not to attack the movement in any way whatsoever but to expand on the dialogue started by it.

Introduction. How occupy wall street changes everything.

The truth is out: the system is rigged in favor of the wealthy

Page 3. ”We are seeing our ways of life, our aspirations, and our securities slip away – not because we have been lazy or undisciplined, or lacked intelligence and motivation, but because the wealthiest among us have rigged the system to enhance their own power and wealth at the expense of everyone else.”

For real change to take place, we must dare to look at the world for what it is. Shifting blame – even on the 1% – is futile, notwithstanding that it can create temporary change. We “the 99%” have been just what the paragraph above denies us to be. The great atrocity that is our world is created by everyone and while some made the decisions and others carried them out we “the 99%” accepted and allowed the atrocities to happen and continue.

The game is rigged? Indeed. However, asking the question “how?” will have a much deeper impact than dis-empowering oneself by stating that “I had no chance to begin with”. Yes, you did! To understand the true extent of the potential we have just being born into the first world – into the elite(!) – we must broaden our perspectives to encompass the entire world.

We have many opportunities available to us while in many countries people really did not have a chance to begin with in any way whatsoever. Granted, access to these privileges is not equal or open for all at all times and the fact that even one person is able to make choices which will leave one outside of the entire system is absolutely unacceptable. However, our challenges are overcome-able – or at least they were at some point of our lives. Therefore, we are unable to blame another for a lifetime of negligence towards ourselves. There are things that the 1% is actually responsible for, such as creating entire economic zones where the people actually have no hope – all in the pursuit of profits. But for us to blame them for how we lived our lives is not an option. Only when we admit to this point and start to carry responsibility for who we accept and allow ourselves to be and become can we start to empower ourselves to one day direct our society into what it must be for all to have a dignified life – not just for us in the first world, but in the rest of the world as well.

“we the people now know that we have the right, and the power”

Page 7. “The occupy wall street movement has become a space where a multitude of leaders are learning to work together, think independently, and to define the world we want to live in. Those leaders will be stirring things up for years to come.”

During my time in the occupy movement I heard many times how the elitism of this world should be abolished. However, the same people who said this simultaneously looked around for 'an elite' to stand up and to create the world they support for them. This is the very root of the division into the “99%” and the “1%”! This goes to show how thorougly we fail to look into ourselves to determine the ideas, beliefs and perceptions which create the world as it is today. Of course, people will do different things, but what I saw in the movement was not a group that thrived to fulfill their potential to face the challenges that exist today, but a group of people who were waiting for a savior to rise from among them. From within the “99%” then arose a “1%” of leaders to “stir things up for years to come”. It is obvious that there is no real solutions here, but a temporary one which will only end up creating the same system of inequality.

The current corporate structure is created upon this very setup. The 1% have created jobs for the 99% who in their apathy – apathy that is supported by each and every part of the system to keep this arrangement as it is – have not even considered creating something on their own, but awaited for something to be created for them. Therefore, in considering how to break free from this cycle we must not only expose the rules and structures that create this unfair world, but also work on ourselves. Apathy can be overcome and before the masses move themselves for themselves, instead of just giving their support to a few leaders, there will be no change to this arrangement of division. We are all responsible – investing our responsibility to the hands of the few is not valid, but the creation point of the elite class.

“What next?”

Page 11. “The revolts in Egypt, elsewhere in the Middle East, and in Europe belie the story that popular uprisings are futile”

Uprisings have always been the initial step to revolutions, of which we have had many. However, the real point of futility is being missed: regardless of countless of uprisings and revolutions the exact same system has rebuilt itself – a system of privilege – a system of inequality.

Because of this fact I raise the issue of self-realization. We create this system as a consequence to ourselves – as a consequence to what we as a species accept and allow ourselves to be. Therefore, for the system to change, we who create and sustain the system have to change. In this, placing blame outside of ourselves doesn't bring about a solution but a distraction that is a step away from one.

To be continued...

Access: denied.

‎These days "Food shortage" means that people are not given the food they need. The problem is not the food supply. There is plenty of food. The problem is within the distribution of food.



I have held an idea about the current economic system that it is our way of calculating that everyone gets their share - that everyone receives according to their contribution to the system. In the light of recent events I am forced to draw the conclusion - as anyone looking at the current global unemployment and unequal distribution of resources - that this is not true in anyway whatsoever. People are not out of work because of laziness or incompetence, but because of greed. The current economic system accepts and allows a competition where the most effective is rewarded the most without defining the rewarded effectiveness according to the reality we live in.

"We make a million laptops a day!"
"But we only need a hundred thousand."
"I don't care! Let the retailers trash them when they become obselete!"

The current situation is exposing the system for what it is. It was never meant to keep everyone safe and fed, but to accept and allow bigger and bigger concentrations of wealth and power to form. To achieve certain things we need to pool our resources, but even the pooling was not for the betterment of all but for the betterment of the few. We do not pool our resources to end poverty and hunger (which is possible) but to make technological inventions that promote dependency, to build skyscrapers in the middle of the desert and to build weapons.

Regardless of what is evident to anyone who dares to look we seem to hold on to how things are as if it is the way everything should be - as if it is created by our very nature - as if it is natural to let a person starve if they don't have credits to back up their worth without giving it a second thought even if that person never had a chance to make the required credits in the first place.

This is unacceptable.

However, this is also a golden opportunity. The atrocity is not that those who have 'won the game' create the world into what it is today, but that it is allowed. Until this point is understood, the game will continue. Saviors and superheroes exist in stories designed to keep the masses from realizing the power humanity holds as a collective. Anyone who has been in private business understands that even with 10 people you are able to create wonders.

Thus, I ask myself the questions which I need to answer to understand why I personally have accepted such a system with my own inaction. Why I have never actually considered the issue but held an idea about myself as a person who 'doesn't need to consider this kind of stuff'. Time is seriously running out, therefore it is time for me to wake up - not to call others to do this, but for ME to wake up.

Support yourself to wake up as well.
Study up on alternative solutions.
Investigate people who are working to bring about a change in this world.

Listen: 10,000 years of conditioning.

Here is an interview which will put much of this into context:



As said, the evolutionary starting point of humanity is in egalitarianism. There most likely existed phenomenon, which were comparable to authoritarianism such as hierarchies created out of mating preferences. However, these hierarchies were not fixed – the best hunter was the best hunter for as long as he was the best hunter. Once this changed, the authority of the best hunter was no longer bestowed upon him.

With the invention of agriculture the attitude towards our environment changed. It was realized that plant life can be grown to meet the purposes of humanity. Where we once searched for the most suitable environment, we now looked at how to engineer any environment to suite our needs. In time, this expanded to include animals through domestication. Eventually it was realized that our children could be 'domesticated' much in the same way as animals. This gave birth to a variety of possibilities to mold the social fabric of our society by 'domesticating' the growing generation.

Through the invention of agriculture came the invention of ownership of land, which during the times of feudalism had lead to a situation where virtually all land was owned by the few, making everyone else subservient to those whose lands they worked upon.

During these times the hierarchy was enforced with violence. Therefore, in order for parents to ensure the survival of their children they would have to teach them the obedience demanded by the authorities. This same phenomenon is seen today as children are taught to meet the demands of our current society out of a fear for their survival.

The attempt to create a better world for humanity (or for some) through the idea that nature, the animal kingdom and the growing generations can be controlled and molded to meet our needs might have started out with the best of intentions. However, today, 10,000 years later, we face a situation where desperate attempts are made to uphold this artificial hierarchy to which we have grown completely dependent upon – one that we have come to embody through the conditioning of these ten millenia.

I must make the distinction here however, that agriculture is in no way responsible for how things exist today. It is always, as it will always be, the actions of the human which makes the world what it is.

So, hierarchical society, what gives?

It seems that hierarchy is the phenomenon of 'trading responsibility for power'. There are many arguments for why it is 'natural' for only a few 'heroes' or authorities to stand as the paragon of man while 'the rest' are 'free' to live a life of insignificance. Yet, each of these arguments are invalid unless it is thoroughly understood why the grand expression of man seems to be reserved only for the few.

It is as if the ultimate promise of hierarchical society is to make the role of the human less – as was in the beginning where agriculture gave the human more 'free time'. However, now that the human is actually generally becoming less in physical and mental ability – as both are apparently reserved for the few while the rest can succumb to a life of numb mediocrity – we face a situation where the hierarchy is no longer a 'fun alternative' for the system of equal participation that was the egalitarianism of the hunter-gatherers.

Fundamentally everyone is responsible for themselves; we must move ourselves to sustain ourselves. Therefore, on a fundamental level there exists a philosophical problem with externalizing personal responsibilities: firstly, this can only be done through artificial systems and secondly if everything is taken care of for us we will become less due to our decreased personal effort and in the process we will grow increasingly dependent upon the artificial systems which we accept and allow to take care of us. Thus, hierarchies create further need for hierarchies.

As an accumulated effect of 'trading' responsibility for power we face a situation where the group who actually address the real problems of today is extremely few in numbers. The question is, will they be able to find a solution for the problems we face, and whether or not the solution is for all humans to start carrying responsibility? The latter case would mean the collapse of our current hierarchies, which means that it is also an option left unconsidered by those in power.

According to what I consider to be common sense, these 10,000 years of trial and error with authoritarianism call for a shift to a system of equality.

Go to a seminar: Dare to listen, to question and to see things for what they are.

I went to a seminar where Pentti Linkola was interviewed. In his interview he painted a world view which claimed man to live in a dream from which there is no way out. The dream will inevitably lead to catastrophe which will end all life on Earth and this can only be prolonged, not stopped. He talked about being an example through one's own actions, and at the same time he talked about how he himself has lost all 'hope' in the world and humanity.

These claims made me ask the following question from him (translation):

”You talked about humanity dreaming a dream from which we cannot awaken. You also talked about being a role model as well as your own lost hope. I have two questions which I would like to open up by saying that I am part of a generation which embodies probably more than the generations before the lesson from Peter Pan: In a world where no one grows up the never-ever land is created from what the children believe in. I have walked among my generation and the inescapable horrors of the current manifestation of our 'never-ever land' is waking people up far and wide. Thus, my question is: what do you base your claim that humanity cannot awaken on, and is this really the example you want to give to those who will remain here to deal with the situation after you are gone?”

He spoke, but it was not an answer to my question.

If someone can be demystified, they were not who they appeared to be. Within this context, the pessimism and defeatism of the generations that came before mine must be exposed for what they are. There is a lot of self-righteous defeatism among speakers and thinkers who are held as authorities by the younger generations. Many of them claim the world to be unfix-able and the human within it to sleep an eternal sleep. This is bullshit, which commonly only justifies the speakers own inaction.

Even if the claim would be true the only practical consequence of believing such a thing would be to give up. Is this really what we need?

Anyone who claims fatalism is defending their own defeatism in the face of what they believe is about come, and if this world view is adopted by others, it will only lead to more defeatism.

The growing generations must realize that they are not inferior to those who came before them. Self-suppressed human beings are less than who they really are by their own acceptance and allowance, and no amount of artificial authority, tittles, achievements status and/or power are able to change this. If this is what we follow, who will we become?

Therefore, I, along with everyone else, must dare to look at people as people without cloacking them within their reputations and achievements. Only then will we see who we really follow.

After which, we question following.