I do not have a bank account, nor do I want one. People tell me it’s convenient and perfectly safe. They do not consider that it might be more convenient to actually have money on hand when paying for things instead of stressing over a piece of plastic which in reality is worth nothing. They do not consider that the lack of safety of dealing with banks, bankers, and their ilk contributed to the Great Depression, the Great Recession, or that banks seem to continuously be in need of a bailing-out from the government because they have so many problems (and when I explained this to a banker recently she simply repeated that it didn’t affect me – as if she actually thought people and banks aren’t affected by the economy!). It is neither safe nor convenient to have to wait a day or two for the bank to open because one needs to withdraw money to pay for a medical emergency (on account of having to pay a certain amount upfront at the hospital while the rest may or may not be covered by insurance). One cannot convince bankers to open their doors in such a case.
If I cannot get to my money if and when I need it, then I shouldn’t have to pay untrustworthy strangers to protect it when I can simply put the money in a safe on my own private property. Even if the bank is open, they don’t necessarily have your money. (That’s what happened during the Great Depression. People went into the banks to get their money and it just wasn’t there. The stock market played a part in it too, but the banks were still involved because that’s where the money was being held.)
Advertisements are dressed up to get individuals and families to let them hold on to their money and pay for their services – services which are not necessary in the slightest. One does not need a checking account with a big business (that’s what a bank is: a business) in order to pay bills. Money orders exist. One does not need a savings account to buy food or clothes. Cash the checks yourself, take the money you need with you, and keep the rest in a place you know is safe rather than with businessmen (for example, an actual safe).
I’ve heard it before, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: never trust a businessman.
It is unethical and terribly disrespectful to force people to fight for something they don’t support. It reminds me of someone trying to order dogs to jump through flaming hoops. The dogs, on their own, probably do not feel the urge to jump through or into an enclosed area lined by something potentially harmful or deadly that their instincts are probably telling them to avoid – namely fire. And yet, they are given the orders just the same. If the dogs cannot be convinced to do something incredibly stupid and counter-intuitive against their will, the trainer can get new dogs – dogs that are too stupid to listen to their primitive and far superior wolf instincts. Dogs that are “more intelligent” (which, by some peoples’ standards, seems to mean something like “easier to manipulate”. To me that seems to imply that the new dogs are actually less intelligent, especially since people now know that humans are easier to manipulate when they are deprived of a proper education, and also because dogs that are more willing to do things for treats are probably better suited for scavenging as opposed to hunting since the former doesn’t require as much brainpower and intelligence to be successful at, but anyway…). If there was a dog equivalent of the draft that would somehow force the first group of dogs to jump through flaming hoops despite their aversion to such behavior, we’d probably call that animal cruelty (well I hope we would, anyway). However, if this method of forcing dogs to jump through flaming hoops against their will was disguised adequately to make it seem as if it wasn’t animal cruelty, and if there was some sort of media storm bashing the old method and talking about how the new method is so much more humane, then the liberties of the unwilling dogs would be withheld somewhat longer than they would have been originally. As mentioned earlier, this can be compared to people being forced to do things. That being said, it can also apply to people being forced to not do things. Take bank accounts for example. They must be checked on obsessively like toddlers so you know your money isn’t being stolen by anyone who isn’t one of the bankers in charge of holding on to the money for you (because, hypothetically, you decided to trust a complete stranger with your money even after experiencing the Great Recession and learning about the Great Depression in school and hearing news stories about banks needing to be bailed out and knowing what the economy is like and so on), although this has become easier with the internet, mobile phones, and setting your preferences to receive notifications of things. Basically the machines are capable of doing it until/unless some part of the process becomes corrupted. But for anyone who doesn’t have a bank account, these people will make it an exhausting hell for you to cash a simple paycheck. This is how they try to get you to jump into the ring of fire. But anyway, back to the dogs. Let’s say the first group of dogs was replaced and the second group behaved splendidly for a while. Eventually the second group starts begging and whining for increasing amounts of incentive to behave and becoming aggressive if they are not pampered after they lazily make a feeble attempt at doing what they did so willingly at first – even if they do not accomplish the task. Maybe the trainer wants to get rid of the dogs and maybe he doesn’t. He checks around while thinking about it and suddenly finds that no one wants to buy the dogs because literally EVERYONE ELSE knew about their behavior problems and everyone refuses to put up with them. So now he has lost an option for getting rid of the dogs if he chooses to. As he considers other methods of potentially getting rid of the dogs (animal shelters and such), the dogs begin to act increasingly more problematic. He slowly begins to realize that he made a mistake in getting rid of the first group and that making dogs jump through flaming hoops was a ridiculous idea in the first place. Now he is stuck with ill-mannered dogs that he has to feed and clean up after every day. So in conclusion: you can choose to not bite the hand that feeds you, but you should never feed the mouth that bites you.
People used to be well-rounded. They were educated on a great number of subjects and were physically fit (much more so than a lot of people today. I actually once heard that painters and sculptors in ancient Rome and Greece took average-looking people off the streets to use as models for their work, which would imply that the strong, handsome men and beautiful women we see in these paintings and sculptures were considered average in appearance at the time). They played beautiful music, participated in intellectual conversations and arguments on a regular basis, and competed to see who was the best athlete, playwright, and so on. They built incredible and beautiful structures, exceeded in the fields of math, science, and even researched natural medicines and the body’s incredible capacity for self-healing. They were beautiful, intelligent, strong, and courageous among other things. They fought bravely, face to face, like men. Modern men are so far from this well-rounded and civilized ancient people that our European ancestors almost seem like a race of gods in comparison. That is all.
If people are so annoyed by so many aspects of mainstream media and entertainment, then I don’t see why they bother with it. They could find other forms of entertainment and if they really don’t like something, then they have the option to ignore it completely instead of wasting their time with something that doesn’t matter. They could be spending time talking about real issues and trying to improve them instead of sitting around yelling at people who aren’t even there. Of course, some people are into that sort of thing, but they don’t make up the entire human population. Not everyone cares about what some fictional character did or what some “famous” stranger wore. And then when I explain to them that I don’t care, they don’t understand (and some of them give me amusing, confused looks). I, on the other hand, don’t understand how some people can find a cat fight more intellectually stimulating than Shakespeare. However, this is beside the point. What is more important is what we attempt to allow our minds to be exposed to and how we use the resulting knowledge (or lack thereof) in our daily lives. What troubles me is that some people continuously subject themselves to things that annoy them in instances when they receive virtually no benefit from the process whatsoever. It just seems pointless and strange to me.