Being Equal does NOT Mean Similar

When I hear demands like rights for someone, e.g. 'rights for women' or 'equal pay day', my only question is, why do we even have to ask for it.
What makes one group so self-absorbed, to think they are the 'leading' group and deserve better pay for the same work? (And I don't want to even start, that women don't even get the same jobs as men, because at least here in my work area still the motto is strong: If you have a work where real work is needed, you chose a woman, when you have a job where you need someone to talk and lead and get followers and workers behind him, you take a man. And also, if you have someone who does the work well, you don't promote him (rather her) away from that post. If you have someone, who does the work badly (because he feels too good for the job or just can't be bothered with all the details necessary), you promote him away. [Not mere hypotheses, but real-live and experienced examples.])

White men?

What is so special about them?
That they are judged as the 'norm' in medicine, as to the detriment of women, who are not regarded in research as well as in the measurements and dosages of medicine, because their bodies react so unreliably?
Perhaps there is a reason, why women react differently.
I for long knew that fact, that the recommended dosage of medicine never was right for me. Not even the vitamins and food supplements in the recommended proportions do me any good and I need to be very careful to try and find my own limits and needs.
I a while ago found a Spanish reporter living and working in the U.K., who writes interesting books and newsletters about those topics. If you are interested, her famous book "Invisible Women" by Caroline Criado Perez came out in many different languages already.

Today, we think of ourselves as being so enlightened, so overly clever, so beyond the Middle Ages.
But are we really?

I state for years, that we are not. That the workers in the Middle Ages were not without rights and were safe from hunger and their families were cared for, because the master was obliged to care for them all, not only as long as he needed them, but for life. What company nowadays does that? They throw out the mere workers, who produced their profits, to maximize the benefits for the management and manipulate the short-term calculations.
If they were a real management, they would find work for their well educated and specialized workforce. But the greatest mismanagement is the management itself, not being creative enough to think ahead, beyond their report sheets and their annual bonuses, to find the work to occupy their trained staff.
With that, I don't divide between colors of the skin.
Why should I?
Greed is universal. Stupidity as well.
It is not limited to white men, nor green women ;o) Just joking. (In German, I most likely would have said 'lilablassblaue Frauen', but English has no equivalent for that 'lovely, nonexistent color'.)
Women more often are forced to see reality, as they are much more pressured into conformity by their surrounding, so their ability to establish a group-sense and peace is often much more developed than among men. Men want to fight out their rank to establish their supremacy. (That is one reason why they are ideal for masonry and the higher levels appeal to them, while those high grades/levels often have a rather annoying feeling for most women.) Women instinctively know, that supremacy won't keep the peace, but instead create war and that is when their children suffer.
They also sense that women can only flourish in peace and well structured and law-abiding societies and women as a consequence are prepared to establish peace with crass (or brutal) methods, if need be and no other option is available. They mostly are only called into government or leading positions, when the problems seem insurmountable or there is nothing in it for a man to shine.

In societal rules, women would be the 'leading' and higher standing entity, which is shown by the woman being the first to enter a room or to be introduced or to be addressed or be served food, ... Those rules were established in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, but have the one common element throughout the European societies, that the women are the more valuable individual in society. Certainly, only because of their child bearing abilities, to create the next generation of humankind, but none the less. What man today still thinks like that and would give the woman precedence without mocking her at the same time or throwing the opened door in her face? (Happened to me repeatedly, so no unrealistic event.) After all, he is the leading and stronger individual and needs to show, that he only plays the societal role, because he is well behaved, not because he thinks the woman deserves it for her own value.

The differences between men and women and their special abilities though are still important, but can only spread the beneficial effect of all abilities, if we value the diverse strengths. But especially with women, for centuries, women got told that they are 'weak', 'unworthy of equal pay, because their work is mediocre, ...
It is a (supposed) compliment for a woman to get told, that she works like a man. Tell the counterpart to a man and you should have quick feet or rather have to bear the consequences of his opinion about that statement. And he certainly will not see it as a compliment, however well you try to phrase it.
So what is so wrong with women's work, when the most 'work' is done by women and men want the right to pick their field of interest and leave the uninteresting, meticulous or boring parts to women (like basic programming code, which initially was a man's domain, as long as it had the implication of a pioneer field. As soon as it became 'work', it was willingly handed over to women, who only got a small percentage of the pay their male colleagues had received for it).

So this example shows that people are equal or at least mostly can do the same work without problems. Just that women have to do the work the men 'leave' for them or men can't be bothered to do themselves. (And I don't speak about cooking for the family, as that women do and historically took up to appease the male aggression and keep a peaceful homestead.)
Women's work needs to pass judgement by men. But women's occupations, even knitting, grow out of boring housewife occupations to something interesting, as soon as men take it up. (I like knitting very much and neither think it house-wify boring nor male, just creative, meditative and satisfying !!!  I think more men should take it up and their opinion about women not being able to calculate and do their math would definitely change. They also could learn some patience with it ...)

Men and women, countries, ethnic groups, cultures and religions should be seen and are equal in my opinion.
But they are not 'the same'.
And that is the main problem. Not even the Union of Europe showed us a good example of this 'coming together of equals', as it continuously tries to make all of us similar and only can cope with us all, if we all have the same curves and angles in cucumbers, ...

Even back in my time at school, we had an example discussion, pretending to be of different opinion about the crusades. For some reason, nobody wanted to join the position I had to defend, so I had to defend it against 7 schoolmates all at once.
In the end, the teacher wanted us to find to a compromise and minimal consensus.
I did not comply and told him, I don't think we should come to a minimal consensus and compromise at the end of a discussion, just because of sitting down and talking together, as we should respect each other, even if we were of different opinion and first should learn about our different positions, before we judge and want to put our opinion over the other or come to a compromise that means nothing to either side, as it is neither side's opinion.
If we can't respect others, who have a different opinion, then the world is due to fail anyway.

How true my words back then as a tiny and embarrassed pupil were.
The world is not one iota further than it was back then.
We discuss, but only accept the other opinions, if they are like ours.

No! That is not my life. My way is, to discover the multitude of reasons and thoughts and find the beauty in the colorful world that is.
I don't want to bring the world down to my limited experiences and my limited brain.
No, I want to expand my brain capacity and cherish the magnitude of what exists and yes, I believe 'God and his Light created'.

So I don't have to say xy... matters. Who am I to judge?
Everyone matters in the same way, or not at all.
But we are not very grateful for the present of life or another individual's existence. (Women are more grateful though, because they know how hard it is earned and how painful it is to come by.)


But as I am a mere woman, who will ever listen to my ramblings ;o)

Why Politicians Should not Lie

That politicians lie and adjust the truth to fit their goals and self-presentation, is no secret and well proven throughout history. (Just see Prof. Dr. John Mearsheimer's book "Why Politicians Lie" for enough examples.)

But in one certain example, I am of the opinion, that a publicly proclaimed lie and transformation of true events backfired and resulted in the 'new cold war' between the Western Powers and Russia in combination with the 'New South' and also directly in the creation of the War in the Ukraine.

The US President Bill Clinton declared, that the US had won the Cold War and also had reached the German unification by its strength of Western politics.

But how did he come to these erroneous conclusions, when the US had not won anything and had not had an active hand in the Unification of the two German states at all?

A discussion of American historians brought me to the conclusion, that in the US and Canadian universities, the knowledge about the true events how the German unification came about, is not part of their curriculum.

They discussed the presidency of Ronald Reagan and they could not find a clear indication, how he was able to begin the appeasement politics with the UDSSR and Mikhail Gorbachev.

My answer to that is, they look in the wrong direction, if they want to find leads, those were not in the US, but rather deeply set in Germany and on a personal level between politicians.

Under Helmut Kohl, the clear result was declared, that to reach the 'go-ahead' from the United States, they would hand over the 'success' to the Americans, so that they would not prevent the German reunification. But all the required steps and discussions leading up to this step solely (!) resulted from the personal friendship between Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Nothing else lead to the reunification of Germany.

No winning of a 'cold war', 
no economic supremacy,
no democratic superiority,
no moral leadership,
as well as no other stupidity ...

 The sole reason for the German reunification was the personal sympathy between Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev and especially the Western sympathies Mikhail Gorbachev held and his interest in Western culture.

So I find it disgusting, how now, before his death and after the beginning of the Ukrainian war, Germany and especially Bavaria treated Mikhail Gorbachev,

and also how disgusting the German former Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to erase Helmut Kohl from history and negated his unique political status and successes for Germany, which would not have been possible without him.

But as a consequence of this 'German lie', the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, thought, that his country was successful in a way it was not and that lead him to declare himself and his country erroneously the winner of the Cold War', which it was not.

This hybris was responsible for his confrontational policies towards the economically weak UDSSR, which also suffered under its very ill and consequentially weak leader Boris Jelzin,

It enabled that the US thought themselves the winners and subsequently could sell out the loosing Russian side, which they sold out under the noses of the Russian population to their economic disadvantage.

Only a strong lead under Vladimir Putin slowly was able to turn this economic disaster for the Russian population around and heighten living standards, income and economic success for his citizens.

With this new-found strength, Vladimir Putin, who, like Mikhail Gorbachev held a very positive Western world view and sympathies for European and German culture, approached a new economic and political defense system, to make all sides happy. He even followed the declared intentions of Helmut Kohl, who saw appeasement politics based on the interests of both sides as the logical solution for a peaceful and prosperous future for the Eurasian continent.

But the US as the 'winners' could not accept a sovereign Russian state, who took up his position in world economics and defense considerations and with the Ukraine supported a country to 'keep Russia down'. There is no other interpretation possible, with all the political and secret service papers lately revealed, which expressly formulated those exact doctrines.

So in my opinion, the fact that Germany did not express the truth about the true reasons for the German Re-Unification, but instead let the U.S. take the 'success' it did not deserve, is one main factor that caused the War in the Ukraine.

Non-News in Established Media - "Germany Once Again is Happily Participating in Genocide"

How will future historians once judge Germany? How can they see the madness repeat itself and the public opinion joining in the consent, that the bad they are doing is the 'right thing to do'? How can politicians turn around nonsensical arguments, repeat them continuously, make them the only tolerated opinion via public media and think that makes their nonsense truth?

In my opinion, the judgement of future generations will be devastating, not only over Germany, but especially Germany, because with its history and experiences in the last century, it should have known better.

But happily joining, supporting and encouraging another 'country', if you even can call this conglomerate of Zionists that, in eradicating another ethnicity and extinguishing the native population, in the future will most certainly receive the harsh judgement it deserves.

Causing the death of thousands of children, either by funding or delivering the bombs for the direct bombings, maiming and wounding of children, and intentionally starving the local population by blocking their access to water and food, and declining funding for the only remaining help-organization providing them with food and aid.

Not even the preliminary ruling of the ICJ gave them pause to rethink their position.

This will not strengthen their defense and pretenses of 'being on the right side of history', but rather will condemn them for all eternity.

P.S.: Remember, with an annoying food / sugar-intolerance, my tolerance for political madness is limited - and the previous Christmas-time with all the cookies and sweets did not help to lighten my mood.

So my judgement over the German politicians is as harsh as they deserve. I condemn them and would rather feel it adequate to see them in Den Haag in front of the International Court of Justice for their continuous ignoring and violating human basic rights.

In Memoriam Gonzalo Lira

Perhaps you ask, who Gonzalo Lira is, or rather was.
I won't give details to him or his background, or even my reasons for mentioning him and his passing here.

But today, things just became too much and I finally had to break my long silence here.

I am angry for so many reasons, and starting to write here again might cause me to break my equilibrium and finally explode.

In a way, this post already is that, me exploding - or at least bubbling over.

 

Gonzalo Lira (1968 - 2024, killed in and by UKR)

R.I.P.

Please take a moment and say a prayer with me for Gonzalo Lira and his family (he has two young children) and also for what he fought for - for the freedom of speech.
Is 'freedom of speech' as dead as he is now?

 

(I might not answer comments on this post, though I hesitate to restrict them altogether.)

What to Do in Case of Armageddon ...

The Bible clearly tells us what to do in case we learn that there is to be the end of the world tomorrow.

It is one of my favorite quotes from the Bible, which explains so much about the world, but also about our fears and how humankind should behave, compared to what it actually does.

"When tomorrow there is to be the end of the world, plant a tree today."

That certainly would help, if each and every one would do that.
Perhaps even on an annual basis, like China, who had achieved the sole effort ever that so far was able to push back the expansion of the desert.

But what do we do instead?

We reduce the availability of energy and heating in a way, that the population gets so desperate, that even the last trees are burned down, instead of thinking or having the resources left to planting new ones.

Way to go to save the world, humankind ...

 

Gluing yourself uselessly somewhere to hinder others to obtain their livelyhood - especially with toxic and environmentally dangerous instant glues - is far from overwhelming me as a constructive option to really do something helpful for our environment. It just shows the madness of brainwashed people, who have no real respect and regard for the value of life, especially if it is not only their own, but that of their neighbors.

Their efforts only leave desperately poor people far and wide. Which for them conveniently fulfills their hidden goal, to forcibly reduce the human population by letting them starve to death - obviously only the others, never themselves!

 

The Third Gender

 You will be surprised, why 'the Third Gender' is of interest to someone not being able to eat sugar.

But things quite honestly annoy me, especially when they are handled with stupidity.

And this question about the 'Third Gender', especially here in Germany, is handled with more stupidity than one would expect.

For example, that the naming 'the third gender' is just unreflectedly translated into German with 'das dritte Geschlecht' and used as a political slogan to force people to 'gender', is so out of place that you would expect people - especially the ones meant by this supposed 'more tolerance'-campaign - would protest by now. (But so far, I can't see any protests far and wide.)

German as a language per se has three genders - male, felmale and the third for things.

So if you say 'third gender' in Germany would automatically mean 'things'. So to propose that people in Germany declare themselves of belonging to the 'third gender' should raise astonishment.

Now, what could they have done? Declared themselves the fourth gender?

Of course they did not want that, as that would suggest, that they are beneath the previous three and only take fourth place (which by the way once again suggests what women always critizise - females come behind men and so are only regarded as second best. Though I want to add, that in history and especially in addresses in Germany, the female has the higher social status and comes before a man. Just our modern times forgot that appreciation of the female ability to procreate and guaranty the continued existence of our genes, which was the more valued position that needed and had a right to be protected.)

So, no fourth place for the 'new' gender.

But the greatest irony of it all is, that the short version for the 'new' third gender is 'D', once again an unreflected taking over of the English word 'diverse', which conveniently exists in Germany as well as 'divers'.

But D also is the initial for 'Ding', the German word for 'thing', which now completes the irony with the 'third gender'.

So, who in Germany willingly declares him-/her-/itself to belong to the 'third gender', if he is not a jokester? (Or should I have said jokester:innen?)

As a result, I don't trust any statistics the researchers come up with, as I doupt the right mind of people declaring themselves of belonging to any of those new categories or 'creations' of supposed 'inclusion', while separating so far included varieties of one sole thing, a human heart.

By the way, in my opinion a bit of tolerance towards our neighbors would come a long way in making stupid groupings and naming-exclusions unnecessary, as one would recognise how colorful the world really is and appreciate it in all its bandwidth.

P.S.: As usual, just my personal opinion. If you don't agree, I did not force you to read it. So go and vent somewhere else.

History & Medicine

In historic comparative studies, the sole main element that enhanced the lifespan of the population in the last century was ... (I will reveal it. Just stay for a moment longer.)

You will assume, the medical improvements, all the advanced medicine, better food, refrigerators, ...

NO!

It was the invention of the central heating and warmer room temperatures on average, to result in a significant increase in the lifespan of the population.

The medicine was confronted with illnesses and treatments for an aging population, that formerly had not been necessary, as the people would have already died by then. That increased the necessity for medicine and treatments, but they did not lead to this development, but rather are the result of it and might contribute to a much slighter extent to this development.

Therefore, the current demand for lower heating in the coming winter months could also be declared as an intentional reduction of the population.

Does anyone openly state that fact?

No, not to my knowledge.

Disclaimer:

Without sugar in my life, my patience for stupidity is rather limited. So do not wonder, when I state my dissatisfaction with nonsense quite openly here.