Welcome on Terra

When it comes to our world, many want to convince us, that change is impossible. That change would be bad; it would hurt and damage. And no one ever questioned our world. Barely someone questioned the concept of growth. (Except the Club of Rome with their Limits to Growth.) No one questioned the concept of economies. Many questioned capitalism, but only to not find any suitable alternative. I think re-thinking the world is possible. I cannot go into every detail of how a new world could look like. And those things I do mention make it feel like a utopian society. But that’s my point. I want a utopia. Not necessarily a perfect world; but something like it.

Out current world evokes problem it is directly respobsible for. The arms industry evokes war. Our flood of third world economies evokes poverty. Over fishing depletes fish. Too much plastic in our consumption evokes pollution. Well, the main ‘thing’ responsible for this is simple: the economy. Only because some people – or concerns – earn money with it; others have to suffer. Because the 1% of the rich get more; the rest has to suffer. Our world is of course not fair. (We all know that.) But it could be. I want to present a version a new world where all problems are solved. I am realist of course. I don’t think my vision for such a world will be reality in a few years. (Or even ever.) But this planet is not only my home; it isourhome. I would like to invite you to Terra. You’re welcome.

On Terra there is an Alliance. We had to unite all good to defeat all evil. Right now, evil is organized very well. Like mafias, clans, cartels or even autocratic states. But also hooligans, nazis, racists and generally evil people. To counter such evil doing we have to create a super organization for good. A pool for every democratic citizen to join. Right now we have people who fight for rights, the environment, dissidents and whatnot. Our goal had to be a super-organization to fund the change. If we pooled and gathered all our human and financial resources; we could have a good staring to point to begin a change. Such a super-organization could fund the actual change. Fund for campaigns to raise awareness, fund ads, funding to find new members. This super-organization would be mostly indestrucable by evil. We would join forces with governments to actively bring the voice of the people into the minds of those who are in charge. Democracy is always about what the people want; and not concerns of companies. 

On Terra there is no work. Right now people need to earn money to pay rent, taxes, groceries. Imagine how the world would look like when people did not have to work. It is had to imagine. I mean, who repairs my car? Who cuts my hair? Well, we have to be creative here. First of all we have to dismiss the idea of a 40h week. (Or 8h a day.) Yes, you’d have to work. We’d have to sustain the system. Somebody has to take care of cables or streets, some had to repair bycicles. The point is, that people only worked either less than we do now; or only work when they want to work. There a many million workers. Some would work at some point. Or we re-think the time we use to work. The main problem occuring from a new concept of work is: How do we motivate people when they don’t have to earn money? Well, we manage the system intelligently. We build a software for all people. People who want to work sign up and work. People who need work can upload a job. I know, people would not be paid. People had to work because they would like to work a specific job. And what would people do who do not work at all? Or do not want to work at all? Well, we had to accept that. We should not penalize or dismiss such people. In my version, such people would cease to exist after a few generations. The actual labor would be so highly intelligent, complex and demanding that people who do easy jobs would cease to be there. This is a process we had to enforce.

On Terra there is only intelligence. The current system is a system of the 99%. No, I don’t talk occupy. A high percentage of our world is simple work force. Factory workers, office workers, service workers. These people just sustain the system. I deeply believe in the human race – and even though many are actually not intelligent – most of them have the potential to be more than just a worker. The main focus of an ideal society would be science, art and politics. The three pillars. Science is mostly done by intelligent people. (What is logical.) We mostly do science to search for new products. Yes, there is physics who do research on particles, etc. Yes, there is research on science to defeat cancer and AIDS. But they only do it to find a new, expensive ways to earn money. (See immune- and gene-therapy.) I think science should be free of capitalistic-driven efforts. Yes, we should explore space. Yes, we should find a cure for cancer. But (!) only to improve things. To either heal people. Or to understand the universe. Science for science reason. Science for understanding. Second. Art. Art is the second pillar. Art has no specific valur other than expression. But that is the point: expression. People should do art to find new ways of expression, to find new designs, to find new ideas. Creativity is always the standout point for our species. We had to get creative to hunt animals. We had to get creative to cross the ocean. We had get creative to print books. (You get the idea.) On Terra, art is not necessarily defined by art itself; but by finding new ways of human being. New concepts for society, new systems, new visions. We should enforce art by giving people something new. (And it is plenty of fun too.) And the third pillar is: Politics. Well, politics and intelligence rarely go hand to hand. (See rise of populism around the globe.) I always loved the idea that everyone can do politics. That is only democratic. And that is good. But that is not the point. The point is, that people always demand easy answers. They do not care for complex ideas and concepts. But this is Terra, and we have no easy answers. On Terra, politics is not defined by ideology. Right now we have left and right. And both wings tries to overpower the other. But politics should be defined by ideas; not ideals. The actual point of politic is to find the best answer and solution. Yet, its most profilic point is power and influence. We should only care for people of interest. We should not only vote for our elected representatives. But we should rate them too. This has a good idea? One rating up! This only babbles? One rating down! We should destilated the good from the bad. Thse three pillars are the foundation for the new world.

On Terra there is no crime. There are two types of crime: smart and dumb. I’d say 95% of all crimes are commited by dumb people. Drug dealing, human trafficking, drug smuggling, robbery, murder; you get the idea. There are 5% of all crimes who are highly capable. (Even though I use the term ‘smart’ very loosely.) Tax fraud, crimes related to stock markets, etc. Fighting crime is futile and won’t be successful. People will always commit crime. Prison sentences – or even death – has never stopped anyone from commiting a crime. And that is because of many thing. People don’t think. Like consequences of their actions. People have no idea what they do. Like planning a crime. People don’t care. Like punishment for a crime. I think if we prevented crime; we’d have a sturdy foundaiton for a crime-free world. If we take care of people who seem to go off-rail; we’d might had a good starting point. Okay, we see someone is aggressive. Okay, we see he does drugs. Okay, we see he begins to steal smaller sums. Evil is never as great as it results in a crime. A murderer does not wake up and thinks up: I kill someone. Someone planning a robbery is not a robber one morning. People always develop into an evil being. If we’d use psychology and sociology, and used modern therapy to find people beforethey commit a crime; we’d have a good idea here at hand. And if (!) they commited a crime, they would not be left alone. We’d use therapy and psychiatry to help those people to prevent them from commiting a crime. It works for mental illnesses. Why not for crime? Because people could be stopped. 

On Terra there is only humanity. It would be no exxageration that peoplenoware not (!) human. People hate each other on the internet, they beat each other to death in real life, they commit terrorism, they do organized crime, they kill, they do whatnot. I deeply believe we are not how humans are intended to be. Because evil is more common. Evil is our default mode. Evil rottens a human slowly but surely. It begins throughout their entire life. People are not born evil. But they develop to become so. Good has to practiced. It has to be learned, nourished and cultivated. Hope, love, compassion, kindness, politeness. All these things need to be actively done in order to work. You have to practicehuman. Humans who are good are raised to be like this. It was their surroundings and their circumstances. People without contact to drugs, to violence, to sex, to consumerism. Such people become good people because some tool care of them. Hence I think every human being can become a saint. If we promote and cultivated a culture of positve behavior, of hope, of love, and most of it all, of compassion. Yes, people are evil. Evil is the pre-dominant mindset. But good can exist too. If learned and practiced.

On Terra there is only you. Due to psychology and sociology reasons, people behave in groups and in masses. That is only natural. Human beings need the feeling of being needed, beloved and accepted. The only problem with this is, that it blocks the indiviual progess as a human being. And individual is a person who is free of bias, free of prejuice and free in thought. A person who can think for itself. But such people are not needed. We only have a superifical individuality. (As seen on Instagram.) People think certain hair cuts or brands make them an individual. That is wrong. An individual is a mindset; a stance and approach to life. Such people quesiton things, they analyze and reason, they understand and develop themselves. Such people gather knowledge and understanding, wisdom and positivity. In an ideal world there are only individuals. There is no pre-dominant group or mass. No movement, and no sub-culture. Everything is so diversified and full of consideration. We did not need to engage in specific groups or cultures. We arethe group and culture. Everyone would feel accepted and beloved without the need to be part of something specific. We had a mass of individuals to say it bluntly.

On Terra there is no trade. We have enough resources to provide every human being a house, fresh and clean water, clothes and food. Right now the wealth is densed in the First World. In the West, some parts of Asia and South America. We simply had to get rid of the concept of trade in order to only use resources as we actually need it. The concept of trade is one of the oldest concepts of our species. And it is outdated. Due to technological advancements; we could provide enough for everyone. We only produced what we needed. The concept of mass production is actually the least productive. Because it builds too much and draws up too many resources. If we focused our production onto a person its needs, then we could stop the destruction of our planet. What people do not understand is, that species extinct can’t come back. Eco-systems destroyed cannot come back. Metals and rare earths are not endless. (See sand or sweet water.) If we don’t switch from mass production to a need-to-have basis, the problems will only intensify. We will have wars over resources. To prevent further damage, we’d had to replace capitalism with something new I don’t have a word for. For the lack of a better term: Humanism. Let us focus on the weak and hungry. Let us help slaves and factory workers. Let us point our view onto the poor. 

Terra is of course not real. And the text you’ve just read barely scratches the surface. The point is not if or if not. The questions yes or no. We have to change the world because people do not want to suffer anymore. They don’t want to work all day in shitty jobs, they do not want to suffer from hunger. People are sick of power-hungry politicians. People want change. And all I did was to provide the idea. You’re welcome.

Ghostwords #1: In Between

In between the sheets 

In between two hearts

In between the seats

In between two cards

The right day on the wrong foot

The perfect way no matter how long it took

The one decision to make it all look good

The last mission to make the world go shook

A round bubble to make the vision go burst

An arbitrial idea to sooth the imminent thirst

A black smoke to capture the one who is first

An agonizing dream to the one who is Hers 

P.O.V.: Spider-Man: Homecoming

Did I like it?

A small yes. A big no.

I may be very, I don’t know, overexaggerating if I said it’s the worst MCU film. But it kinda is. It tried to be a lot and, even though it manages to do so, fails hard at some points. Yes, it had humor, action, drama, emotions, visceral camera work. Yet, it lacked the usual ambition MCU films display. Either with strong writing, or strong directing, or some other factors. I was baffled, but it had a total of six screenwriters. Maybe that has been the problem.

– Now on home video

The beginning of the movie, I won’t spoiler, was neither funny nor necessary. Peter makes a little vlog, it tries to catch up with the MCU timeline. Even though it was kinda “cool”; it also annoyed me a lot. The constanct: “Oh, this is so cool. This is so awesome. This is unbelievable.” Just no. Couldn’t there be a more diverse range of reactions? It was just not as funny or engaging as it tried to be.

– The first act

There are two type of things when it comes to film making: Either it is relevant to the plot. Or it is not relevant to the plot. Dialogue can be relevant to the plot. Certain shots; scenes. Entire sequences or set pieces. Most movies first act is used to explain the mythology, the characters and everything surrounding it. This movie’s first act was a boring mish mash of scenes. He goes to school, he tries to be Spider-Man. And that’s all. It could have been used to maybe explain the backstory (even though many would claim that we all know his backstory), but not this Spider-Man’s. Maybe they will explain it in the sequel; I don’t know.

+ The natural Spider-Man

What I did like, and liked a lot, was the realization of Spider-Man’s movement and presentation. I liked the fluid, fast and smooth movements of him and how he was represented in that certain type of environment. I.e. where we see him swing or jump or something. I thought The Amazing Spider-Man did it right; this one did it the best. The scenes of him being Spider-Man were simply engaging and very fun to watch.

+ The Dutch Spider-Man

And as much as I liked Spider-Man, I also liked Tom Holland. He is talented, knows how to shine in every scene and convey a realistic way of how he plays Peter Parker. From the awkward scene, to the sad scenes, to the emotional scenes; he knows how to nail it all the time. It was a delight to watch. I haven’t seen him in other movies as of now, but I think he will be one of the big ones in the future. I may overexaggerating things once again, but my point of view is clear: He. Can. Act.

– Neddy

I don’t know if it’s the script or the actor. Probably some of both. Ned only had constance surprise or constant admiring on his card. I am not sure how to put it. He simply is just the best friend of Peter Parker. It would have been better if he was Harry Osborne. That would have at least some sense and filled a certain role. Heck, they gave M.J. a character, why not Harry? This character, aside from hacking or coding skill, had no real depth or interesting arc to follow through. It was just a waste…

Bottom line: MovieBob was right*

*His point of view is, that Sam Raimi’s first two Spider-Man’s movies are still the best Spider-Man movies. And I agree.

Spiegelverkehrte Welt

Es gibt keine schleichende Islamisierung. Es gibt auch keine gesteuerte Islamisierung. Es gibt überhaupt keine Islamisierung. Es ist eher das Gegenteil. Es gibt eine schleichende Nationalisierung, von Menschen, die AfD wählen und bei Pegida mitspazieren, aber sich auf keinen Fall als “Nazis” bezeichnen lassen wollen. Was sie aber gefälligst zu akzeptieren haben, weil sie Nazis sind.

Es gibt ein paar Grundsätze. Erstens gibt es Religionsfreiheit. Und einfach eine Religion als Ideologie umzulabeln ist ein schlechter Scherz. Zweitens gibt es nur 5-6% Muslime in ganz Deutschland. Drittens ist das Kopftuch kein Zeichen der Unterdrückung. Dies sind Dinge, die jeder kennen sollte. Noch besser natürlich, wenn man sie akzeptiert.

Gucken wir uns doch mal an, wer hier die Probleme verursacht. Muslime machen nichts. Sie gehen ihrer Religion nach. Natürlich darf man nicht verschweigen, dass sich viele radikalisieren und sich dem Dschihad widmen. Doch das ist nur eine kleine Minderheit. Und was machen die Rechten? Sie töten willkürlich Ausländer. Oder sie brennen Unterkünfte ab. Sie verbreiten ein Klima der Angst und untergraben bzw. verachten die Demokratie.

Muslime beten täglich. Oder wie der Kabartetist Volker Pispers es so passend ausdrückte:
“Muslime! Leute die ihre Religion ernst nehmen!” Das christlich-jüdische Abendland geht höchstens zu Weihnachten mal in die Kirche. Unser sog. “Tradition” muss nun als Abwehrbollwerk herhalten, um bloß nicht den Muslimen das Feld zu überlassen. Es ist peinlich. Noch schlimmer ist, dass das auch noch regelrecht missbraucht wird, um “rechte Flanken” zu schließen. Und dies alles kommt auch noch ständig von der CDU/CSU-Fraktion.

Wir haben dank des Internets ein riesiges Problem mit Minderheiten, die sich durch die Vernetzung und gegenseitigem gelike leider viel zu gut organisieren können. So könnte man fast den Eindruck bekommen, sie seien in der Mehrheit. Dem ist nicht so. Noch gibt es Linke, Antifa, und für jeden Naziaufmarsch gibt es die dreifache Anzahl an Gegendemonstranten. Im Endeffekt bleibt es der aufgeklärten Mehrheit nichts anderes übrig, als immer wieder gegen diese Strömungen anzukämpfen. In der Hoffnung, dass diese Menschen Einsicht haben und davon ablassen. Mehr bleibt uns leider nicht übrig.

Lauf mit mir.

Die Definition von Heimat ist irrelevant

“I wish people would not give a damn about what country they were born in.”

“I wünschte, dass niemanden interessiert in welchem Land er geboren wurde.”


Die Definition von Heimat ist deswegen irrelevant, weil “die Heimat” vollkommen irrelevant ist. Klingt etwas simplifiziert, ist aber so. Ich habe die Debatte über Heimat jetzt schon sein Jahren verfolgt und konnte mich mit keiner Definition wirklich anfreunden. Weder damit, dass Heimat der Ort ist an dem jemand geboren wurde. Oder, dass Heimat mehr ein Gefühl ist und das man per se nicht definieren kann. Aus einer humanistischen Perspektive sollte es den Leuten egal sein.

Wenn dir egal ist, dass du Deutscher bist, ist dir auch egal, wenn jemand Afrikaner, Araber oder Asiate ist. Dieses Verhalten hat eigentlich nur Vorteile. Es verbindet und schweißt zusammen. Es fördert Multi-Kultur und Diversität. Und es gräbt den Nationalisten das Wasser ab. Im Endeffekt ist fehlendes Bewusstsein für die eigene Herkunft nur von progressiven und nützlichen Attributen geprägt.

Zumal man immer darauf hinweisen muss, dass Nationalismus ein rein europäisches bzw. amerikanisches Problem ist. Natürlich gibt es das Problem auch in anderen Teilen der Welt, aber dort ist es nicht so evident und eklatant. Bei Rassismus gibt es folgende Begebenheit: Hellhäutige hassen Menschen mit einem höheren Pigmentanteil in der Haut. Dies rechtfertigt Unterdrückung, aber noch mehr, und dies ist typische für den Menschen und seine Natur, Kontrolle. Es gibt keine Afrikaner die jetzt Franzosen hassen, weil sie eine helle Haut haben. Dies nur als Randnotiz.

Wenn wir dieses diffuse und schwer greifbare Konstrukt Heimat vergessen und uns als Menschen betrachten, ist vielem vielen gut getan. Es gibt im Englischen einen schönen Begriff für weltoffene, liberale und multi-kulturelle Menschen: Global Citizen. Dies lässt sich mit dem Begriff Weltenbürger übersetzen. Wobei dieser im Deutschen etwas, na ja, abfällig und / oder kitschig betrachtet wird.

Ich habe mal gesagt: “Uniting people, and not nations.” Im Deutschen etwas: “Das Vereinen von Menschen und nicht Nationen.” Der Kontext ist zwar ein anderer, trifft jedoch den Kern. Wir können immer noch das Oktoberfest feiern ohne uns als per se Deutsch zu definieren. Im Endeffekt geht es um einen entspannten Umgang mit unser jedermanns Herkunft. Wir müssen auch nicht den Nationalstaat abschaffen. 

Wir leben in einer Welt voller Vermischung. Und dies bereichert jedes Land. Unsere Diversität ist unser Reichtum. Ich freue mich über jede Kultur, die uns neue Musik, Speisen oder Sprachen bringt. Die Nazis, tja, die haben den Schuss nicht gehört. Sie klammern sich verzweifelt an alte Muster, weil sie die neuen nicht verstehen. Wird der Fortschritt über sie hinwegfegen? Ich glaube nicht. Aber ich hoffe schon.

Lauf mit mir.


I want …

Creative and Honest Argumentation for a New and Glorious Endeavor


If we want to see change in this world; we have to look closer. Because you cannot change the world. You cannot change a resource-based economy into a sustainable one. You cannot convince economics, scientists, scholars or politicians to change the system to prevent earth from dying. You cannot stop idiots from buying sex, drugs, adrenaline kicks, fun or things they invest in, in order to make even more money. You won’t convince anyone from a different system because people lack the general ability to question things. And further more: lack the imagination to imagine a radically different world. In one sentence: we are screwed.

You may not change the world. Yet, you may try to change the people living in it. Because – even though we have millions and billions of idiots – some people are not dumb. Some people fight for the environment, for better politics, better circumstances, or simply rights. Such people deserve to live in a world that belongs to them. A world that they can contribute to; they can live in peacefully; they can exist in a long, sustainable and nature-leaned life. There is a simple rule: as soon as iditos are in the minority – they cease to exist. The problem is not dictators, no, not CEOs, no, not corrupt bureaucrats, no; the problem is the blind follower; the careless sheep: the idiot. 

When we think on idiots, there are a few key factors to consider. They spread chaos. They are prone to sex and violence. They lack the ability to think for themselves. They have little to no imagination. These people experience joy in other peope’s demise and even death. They are constantly annoyed and offended. They are critisizing and driving people into oblivion and even further. Such people are not real humans. They have no conscious, no sense for right and wrong, no sense for justice and humanity. These people are born with a life without meaning, live a life without meaning, and die for a life without meaning. 

Also, the problem may not even the idiot in itself. The problem is his careless and non-minded activities and behavior. Before we continue, let’s look at our current global system mostly made by and executed: capitalism. This won’t be about capitalism. This will be about the effects of capitalism. One effect is the concept of work. You have to work in order to earn money. You have to earn money to pay the rent. You have to pay rent in order to live a half-way decent life. This simple circle dictates all life around the entire globe. From America to Europe to Asia and back again. You cannot escape this system. You cannot say ‘no’ to the system. You cannot live without money. These rules dictate you to have a job. (Even terrible ones.) You have to pay taxes. (Which is not bad in itself. I just mention it to make my point.) This system – capitalism – destroys us. It destroys the entire globe in order for the 1% of the global population to make even more money.

This system has a certain quirk which drives its core. The core is called growth. This concept makes the system so hard to cancel and destroy. The econmies in the world need to grow in order to survive. When the economy does not grow; the economy falls into a state of regression which inevtiably makes the economy crash and burn. The economy shrinks and inflation hits, which brings the country to its brink and eventual failure. 

The problem of an economy that can only grow is its resource-based structure. To sum it all up: we destroy the only planet we have. We need sand, sweet water, phosphor, wood, gas, oil, rare earths and other elements. And the end can be simply determined: the whole capitalistic system will die one way or another. At one point we won’t have these resources anymore. No, I not a doom-and-gloom person who sees an apocalyptic future; I am just realistic. Resources are not endless. And we do not have any alternatives as of now. But – and – before we run out of resources; we will run into climate change. Climate change will change everything. People flee their countries, New York and parts of the Netherlands get flood. Heat which brings drought; cold which brings destruction. Climate change is very, very real. 

We must change the system. But we can’t. We must change the people. But the people don’t want to. I know my efforts are fruitless and will definitively fail. Yet, I want to present my personal vision for a better world anyway. (It can’t get worse anyway.) In my personal vision for a better future for our planet and species; machines take over. (Not literally.) We replace as many jobs as possible with machines. Office jobs, cashiers, factory workers. The more jobs are being replaced; the small the system itself becomes. This means that less people are employed and the the economy itself becomes smaller. We could use this simple premise as a starting point for a transformation. 

We could use this idea to free the people from the concept of work itself and give them the freedom to decide for themselves. People should do what people want to do instead of doing what they’re being told. In this autonomous world with machines and less employment; we can think up an entirely new concept of how we want to live. Of how we want to spend our life here on earth. I think that, if we put the individual into the focus. The individual needs, interests and abilities; we would benefit. 

The individual itself should be the starting point of how the people on earth want to live and spend their time. Right now we are just big, stupid masses of monkey and morons. The people only express themselves in clothing or jewelry. An individual consists of so much more. I would say that people should try to begin to think and analyze themselves. By trying to think, and by learning to look at yourself in the mirror, people would become better people in general.

If we stopped enforcing the system of capitalism that destroys the planet, and started enforcing a system of restoration and re-naturalizing, we could restore earth itself. We could clean the oceans, clean the air, plant new forests, etc. But here lies a crucial crux I presented at the beginning: It’s an all-intrusive system. To make my point once again: If we want a radically different world. We need radically different people. First we downsize the economies. Here lies the crux hidden in plain sight. Our economies need to grow; not to shrink. This makes saving the world impossible to begin with. As we age and grow older and less new people are born; we can downsize the countries around the world. The population shrinks, the economy shrinks and we downsize the economies.

Then we reduce the population. I can already hear how stupid and inhumane this would be. You get me wrong. I don’t want to dictate who can and cannot; how much and how little. I want people to use condoms. Those who want kids can have them. Just only so much they can actually nourish and raise. The third world should learn to restrict themselves when it comes to getting babies. There is no other way. After we reduced the population we can install as many machines as possible. We should globally work together to invent as many machines as possible to replace workers. This means people are free to do whatever they want. The economy is not main focus anymore. It’s only the people. The one, single person on the street can roam free without rent, loan or income.

Then we try to transform democracy into a neutral democracy. Where people gather by idea and not by ideology. This means people who want more freedom gather in one faction. Other who want more independence in the other one. The people only fight for the best idea; not the best ideology it represents. Then we try to teach the people the ‘only need-idea’. This means that people can have everything they want for free as long as they need it only. You can have a television for free. If it’s broke; you’d get a new one. This can be applied to bicycles, cars, wrist watches. The goal would be to individualize the products as much as possible. It’s not like socialism or communism. It’s the individual needs who matter the most. You can have every t-shirt you want. But only ten! That’s enough. You only get what you truly need. We can reduce resources and save the environment.

The we try to establish an entirely new and global system of education. So that every person on earth gets the same education as everyone else. (My ‘standard people’-idea.) This would establish a global idea of how we want to engage with each others. With the same education everyone would be equal. Everyone has the same conditions to start with. Everyone would benefit. The next step would be finding a way to reduce resource use and make better use of recycling. We should install a system that rewards this. Old phones, televisions, refrigerators, etc, should not be piled up or sent or Africa. We must develop machines and mechanisms that recycle every resource we have. From every possible part. Things like rare earths or other important things like copper and gold are not endless. We must change the way we deal with resources.

And how to we handle essential things like trade? Well, for my part, trading is a thing of the past. Trading things is the most basic mechanism human civilization has developed. We trade since we became the modern homo sapiens. The sooner we begin to only produce what people need and reduce the usage of resources, the sooner we can save the planet. Instead of producing and endless amount (or how much a company wants to produce), we only produce so much we actually need. I, again, will hear my critics say I would promote communism. I am not doing that. The research and development won’t stop. We can recycle old televisions and produce new ones. The entire production is not being stopped; just reduced. People should only get what they truly need.

Money is a system only 1% of the entire population benefits from. 1% has more money than the rest of the world. As we get rid of the economy, we naturally get rid of the monetary system. How would we handle things then? By simple getting it. This, again, sounds like communism for my critics, hear me out. Imagine you needed a bike; you would get it. You need a car? You get it. You need bread and yoghurt? You’d simply get it. Imagine a super market you could choose whatever you wanted without actually buying it. That’s my point. Of course we had to implement mechanisms to restrict overuse and abuse of the system. But that’s the human factor. 

To finish my ‘vision’. Our current system is not sustainable. And I am not idealist and stupid enough to say that my version is any better. I see that people suffer. People suffer in Africa, in poorer countries, people in war zones, people who are poor in the first world. Most people do not benefit from capitalism. And we see – around the globe! – that people more and more are fed up with the world itself. People are simply not able enough to see a better world. My personal vision puts those into focus. Those who have enough will already have enough in the future. Those who have nothing will be able to live a life in dignity. To sum it up. Climate change is our chance to replace capitalism with a truly free world. And if climate change won’t make it; a deserted wasteland will do. (If it wouldn’t be too late then.)

Run with me.

P.O.V.: MacGyver (2016) – Episodes 1-12

Did I like it?


I have not seen the original series from the 80’s and I only know the stories my father told me about it. The big difference between both versions is that the 80’s show as about MacGyve as a lone wolf that is likable and charming. And the remake is about a cocky MacGyver with a team at his hand. I can’t confirm the first claim, but after watching the first half of the season, I can say that Lucas Till is as likeable as it can get. The character is nice, educated, polite and friendly. I like him. Let’s get going.

+ Not your average Joe

Wow. Just wow. The plots are above average, polished and very good. Be it the episode with the Russian bomb or the plot with the drug boss in prison. It always gives a good spin onto some already known and used plot points. The way its presented exceeds my usual level of excitement for a show. It’s even better than my much beloved Supernatural. (Even though you can’t compare tv-shows.) I like the way it begins, how it’s being handled and how it ends. Very weill executed. Well done.

+ Tinkering with tinkering

The ‘gimmick’ of the show is the making of tools and usage of ordinary objects to solve complex problems and harsh sitations. And wow, that is so much fun to watch: (And you can learn a thing or two if you pay attention.) I always think: How is he going to get out of this and then he comes up with a solution that always baffles me. Again, I can’t compare it to the original but this one, oh boy, is fun.

– Bozer snozer

I can’t find a huge interest in this character. He seems to not serve any purpose and always feels out of place. For the first half, they did not give him much to do. He only is there. He does not quip or quirk. He does not joke or rant. He is just there. I don’t know if he plays a bigger role in the future, but besides giving MacGyver a friend, there is nothing to do with him. And the acting is not very… I don’t want to judge his talent; but it is not very engaging. He always either smiles or makes a neutral face. Not much to get excited about as a viewer. I am sorry.

– Riley and rules

Mhm. She is the typical, clished and somewhat conservative hacker-type. And I mean her characterization and not the character herself. She is the hacker and hacks stuff. In a very old-fashioned way. “Oh, here, check his data.” And then there is a file and all data is exposed. “Oh, here, check his communication.” And then there is everything ready to be wire-tapped. This is more a critizism of the arche-type i.e. the hacker. Riley itself is snarky and tough. Something rare for a women’s role and even rarer for a TV-show. I can live with her.

Bottom line: I am happy there will be a second season.