05 June 2021

Are you "woke" yet?

Are you “woke” yet? You all do realize don't you that being "woke" has become one of the most hilarious topics that is currently generating creative humor and comedy? There is no denying that woke humor is hilarious!

However, allow me to also connect being woke in ways it is not usually connected - given that being woke is all about connectedness and our responsibility to being connected in ways we know. More importantly it is in ways we have not known - which is primarily what being woke is about on an individual basis - the ways in which we were unaware of connectedness, though they have always been obvious.

You all do realize don't you that biological, chemical, and electromagnetic frequency warfare (whether foreign or domestic or a combination of both, in origin) are all intended to reduce the population; and psychological warfare (including cyber warfare) is intended to create unresolvable divisiveness among us because it is dedicated to creating obstacles and limits that result in frustration, anger, and desperation? These are never a good mix for an individual.  They are an even worse mix for entire communities of any size because they lead to anarchy - not necessarily in name or intention, but in action.

You do realize don't you that, all together, biological, chemical, electromagnetic frequency, and psychological warfare are intended to create an attitude of widespread anarchy type behavior which is intended to lead to acceptance of organized anarchy where a charismatic leader or a a charming bully (we've seen both types in politics) seems to rise our of nowhere to lead the charge.  Yeah, it sounds like conspiracy theory doesn't it. In fact it sounds a lot like topics folks have been dancing around wanting to talk about, openly, the entire time the world has been dealing with covid.  So what is being promoted in MSM to talk about openly, instead, as covid winds down as the main topic?  UFOs of course - actually UAPs.  New name, same thing.  Talk about redirecting attention!  Go figure . . .

Another label for the problem of those wanting to superimpose organized anarchy, is "organized crime" (no matter whether or not biological, chemical, electromagnetic frequency, and psychological warfare are the methods used). Organized crime starts at the level of gangs . . . and in worst case scenarios, over time, leads to corrupt, dictatorial governments that do not serve the people, but instead serve the collusion of folks who support the self-serving interests of the gang leaders who have been propelled into power by the collusion.

As long as our public servants take their oath seriously to defend our constitution, thus our nation, from foreign and domestic enemies, and expect all other public servants to do the same, then it is possible for government to be functional, instead of resembling what is the "any means to an end" ideology - the self-interest collusion that is the hallmark of organized crime at any level of management.

Even though it has become a thing to poke hilarious fun at being woke, I'm just sayin’, here, that being woke is not always about woo woo people and their stuff.  Nor is it always about snowflake people and their desire for special treatment mollycoddling.  In fact, there is nothing more valuable to individual freedom than being woke on an individual and community basis when it comes to cause and effect common sense.  If people aren't woke in any other way, that type of  woke is enough.  Bet on it.

Of course we are all woke to some extent, in some way or another. If I'm not mistaken, religion has traditionally been considered a matter of being woke to those who are dedicated to practicing religion - beyond embracing a philosophy that has been organized into a somewhat unique set of tenets of belief that underlie any religion. If religion is not a matter of being woke for some, then it is a matter of in-name-only identifying with religion.  Commonly in-name-only labels are intended to satisfy the demands of others - perhaps to try to minimize efforts to be "converted" from who we are when we know who we are, have chosen to make self into who we are, instead of allowing other people to mold us into who they want to acknowledge us as being in relation to themselves.

imgflipdotcom meme
The role others want to assign to us in their life is not always a role we want to be molded into being inextricably stuck in for the purpose of making the life of someone else fulfilling. The same protective motivation applies to defining ourselves in other ways, for example politically and/or philosophically.  When we define ourselves we are better able to protect what we know that others do not know which makes us unique, because of how we know it, also because of how and when we choose to share it, and under what circumstances. Context is  important.  So, some of the labeling of ourselves we do can be considered being woke in practical ways. although they may seem incongruous or hypocritical, on the surface, to those who do not know us well.  Bottom line is that one who is woke does not allow room for ill-intention.  Whatever else it also is, being woke is unique to each individual.

Thing is what being woke has in common, across the board, is the recognition and understanding of connectedness which means  a recognition that doing damage (either intentionally or out of ignorance) creates problems for everyone.  How can anyone woke not also be civic woke?  That means willingly taking responsibility to respect applicable rules, ordinances regulations, and laws, applicable by virtue for where we each live.  They are all intended to keep the least thoughtful and the least knowledgeable among us (which includes the youngest) from doing damage because of ignorance and/or ill-intention.

When these agreed upon standards among people are not fitting, or not just, or not appropriate to time and place, then we are empowered, collectively, to revise them. Being empowered, collectively, in this way, is one of our most valuable freedoms.  It requires patience and diplomacy, which some of us learn the hard way while we make improvements in our own times for the benefit of posterity - future generations far into the future. 

Posterity is why thoughtful patience and diplomacy are both a requirement when collectively considering revisions.  The opportunities for the best quality of life possible are what we are able to provide for posterity.  We learn, collectively, as we go through life, unfortunately through painful trial and error, about what works and does not work that provides quality of life for all, and better opportunities for everyone, far into a future that will be happening without any of us.

When we arrive at that place in life of knowing we are responsible for the quality of life of subsequent generations, it is accompanied by wondrous gifts.  It does not require being a mother or a father, literally, even though it is commonly believed that only people who become parents will arrive at that place in life.  It requires embracing a parental attitude of responsibility as a way of life, though, toward all others - not the type of parenting that is being an owner of others, but the sacred guardian type of parenting that recognizes and protects the sacred in everyone, whether or not it is yet realized.  As such it is a place at which one can arrive, at any age.  Knowing you have arrived at that place is also a gift, in and of itself.

Fact is we are all also ignorant in some way or another about a variety of things that other people know.   What we know we are ignorant about increases the more we choose to eliminate our known ignorance.  Those who we consider to be intelligent have done a lot of eliminating of their own ignorance and are humbled by the increase in their ignorance because of having done so.  Thus, the value to everyone of sharing what we know, and earnestly listening to, questioning, and understanding what others know also, when making collective decisions based on individual judgments, like voting, for example.

Consider that a candidate who throws the most money into the pot to buy "vote for me" advertising would not necessarily be the most honest or dedicated public servant. The candidate who purchases the most advertising, in the most diverse media, has the most name-recognition. The ads intend to encourage us to associate the candidate's name with the stellar good character and values presented in their "vote for me" ads; and in some cases they are intended to lead us to associate several bad characteristics, also or instead, which some candidates like to assign to those who they consider to be their competition.

Unfortunately, being a passive consumer of subliminal advertising is the extent of the “research” some of us do before we vote - as we absorb incessantly repetitive political ads (actually, ads in general but that is a whole other story).  We do not always take time to pay attention, wonder, and question who the candidates actually are. Some of us never do.  How else would it be possible for unacceptable candidates to be elected to office - other than lemming-like behavior of voters based on not so subliminal advertising messages?  The quality of our candidates is in direct proportion to the number of us who are paying attention, wondering, and asking questions for which we are willing to seek answers.  That is also how we maintain or create the quality of the representation we need in government once individuals have been elected or appointed.

Sure, I've been guilty of being a passive unwilling consumer of subliminal ads in the past, but not much after having realized I am an unwilling consumer.  When I vote, I actually go to more than one source to read, watch, listen to what type of experience the candidates have, and what they say about themselves. When they are into disparaging the competition I almost always cross them off my list as a candidate who is not viable.  Does that mean they do not have what it takes to be good public servants? Not necessarily, except that resorting to ill-intended truth-twisting which is the intention of most rancor, is a creative form of lying that intends to cheat and thieve from those who are targeted.  So I do not consider the mud-slingers to be trustworthy.  In question is why a candidate resorts to talking about the competition when it is an opportunity to promote the reasons a candidate has for wanting to serve.

The fact is that if something unfavorable is in the record of a candidate, if what is unfavorable does not make the candidate ineligible to serve then the candidate should be the one to disclose what is unfavorable and should be asked to do so.  Another fact - there need to be more stringent qualifications applied to serving the public as elected or appointed government officials.  What matters is that candidate eligibility is a collective decision of us all - a debated voting issue so that our candidate choices are not arbitrary choices based on nepotism of any type.  That includes the nepotism of large or small "created families" of people who gravitate toward one another through something they all have in common, considered important to them all.  Our political parties exemplified that while they turned into ideological political enemies - which was also because of divide and conquer divisiveness. 

Being woke to participating in our civic responsibility is priceless, and hard work - paying attention to cause and effect over time, our advising of those who represent us, and our voting.  We make bad choices when we collectively trust a scammer who scams millions of us, and good ones when our common sense is woke; woke in a way that leads us to hone and temper our cause and effect sensibility to the point that it is personally reliable in ways that lead us to find answers for what we have sense enough to question, when we make decisions. That way ill-intention does not reign supreme when the powers-that-be are promoting situations that create anarchy - whether they find opportunity or create it through narcissistic any-means-to-an-end philosophy that does not consider posterity (using biological, chemical, electromagnetic frequency, and psychological warfare, also, or not).