If the EU intends to have the United Kingdom stay in the Union, it’s doing a pretty bad job of throwing over billions of economic contributions due for the UK in such a short notice. It is like saying your dad couldn’t get out of your house not unless he pays all the debts he owes you. The bottom line is just it doesn’t feel like opinion, but only pressure, is welcome.

In all honesty, immigrant workers are swamping Europe by storm. UK citizens are concerned about the UK becoming a hub for migrants looking for welfare safety without doing their share. This has also prompted many Britons to vote for the UK Independence Party or UKIP.


Britons want out of the situation, then the EU throws a £1.7 billion contribution due from the UK because its economy has seen the better last three years along with the Netherlands. This came in in such a short notice;  the UK is slated to have an In/Out referendum by 2017.


The UK disagrees with the EU’s “Free Movement” principle, which allows migrants to have passes to almost every EU country. UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that the Conservative party now wants to restrict the number of migrants coming into the United Kingdom, the jobs they could have and the parts of the country they can reside in.


But the bottom line is this; you couldn’t force anyone to stay with you if they do not feel they have to anymore. The UK people have proved disillusioned with the EU leaders. And it is not just in the UK, some EU countries had also voted for those who would critically look at the EU to help secure their best interests.


But then again, if the UK were to break from the EU, it will be isolated from the entire continent, and then there will be trouble from that point on.

I just read the news about an al-Qaeda Emir in a town called al-Dana in Syria pleading for the Islamic State (IS) to release its latest hostage to-be-beheaded Alan Henning. According to the emir, who according to my research is a commander of towns and strongholds held by the al-Qaeda, the man did no harm and had come from an Islamic charity helping out Muslims indiscriminately.

This opened my eyes to the fact that once you’re an IS, you must be a pretty big twit. The al-Qaeda, as far as we know, are the biggest names in terrorism because they took down the twin towers in the US with civilian aircraft – the most extreme terrorist act in the world. As they are synonymous with evil, now IS is taking the throne.

Truthfully, the al-Qaeda must have honour. According to my research, the al-Qaeda and the IS had a falling out because of their consistent disagreements. The al-Qaeda wanted to gain support. While they may agree with the beheadings, they will not do it out of spite to discourage their enemies, but sparingly and with guaranteed consequence.

It is true that when your enemy continuously chips off their aces, you become more furious but more anticipating of the growing chance you could outwit them. For the IS, it is only a matter of time before recruits become discouraged with their repulsive and barbaric activities, and they dry up from the inside.


All this talk about the Islamic State, or IS, as they are now called, might seem like miles away from the safety of our own homes to care about. I mean, even Yahoo News is more worried that Napa Country’s earthquake will lower the production of wine for the season, especially now that Christmas is slowly approaching. However, it is sickening about my ideas regarding the movement of the Islamic State within the Middle East.

All of these began when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had attacked a peaceful protest to contain protesters violently, and of course, it merited international criticism. In August last year, the Syrian regime was accused of using gas weapons that killed many innocent lives, including women and children.

I might not agree with Al-Assad’s plans, but it is clear the viciousness of the IS has become troublesome. The IS had also fought against the Syrian government alongside the Syrian National Coalition (SNC), the official Syrian Opposition party. But what if the US just played into the hands of these idiots?

What if the entire thing is a ‘hook, line and sinker’ game where the US will be tempted to finally end IS once and for all in Iraq, only to meet the retribution of many Sunni Islamist terror groups worldwide? The problem is not just in IS, or in Britain, who had claimed it has become a leading ground for IS troop production.

Everywhere in the world, Sunni groups may or may not support the hardline Sharia laws of the IS, but a direct involvement of the United States can surely bring dangerously massive consequences.

After reading an article from Inc.com, I found myself wondering that almost every great leader that made history in the world had his or her own quirks, which helped propel themselves to the temporary and land-marking success they have. The article referred to Steve Jobs, and definitely, Apple’s biggest game-changing CEO was narcissistic as hell.

Okay, so let’s focus on Cleopatra.

Cleopatra was also a narcissist. She put her own needs before her servants and others’ needs. In this way, she became powerful because she inspired others that they can share in her glory. During those early times, well, some individuals were in league with the reputation of deities, so you will understand people believed anything especially if their self-will is very weak.

Then let’s focus on Julius Caesar.

Rome’s famous emperor had a knack for being a control freak, and a narcissist himself. He made monuments of himself inside the emperor’s palace he built for himself. However, his narcissism had inspired a great nation into beauty, which we still marvel in the present day. He made immortal the stories of those who died during his day and age. Of course I know that it is possible the victors wrote and glorified some of the opposition in the past.

Truly, I have to admit that the greatest leaders in history had made great changes. But the thing is, I couldn’t incline other leaders in the present day in the same way as these historic leaders worked things out for their people. I guess greed, a very dark trait, didn’t bring anything to people, well, possibly except a bit of dominance against others.

A typical man works this way; he cares for his wife and children, and the people he intends to help and has helped him in the past. All others are insignificant, unless they touch upon his, his family and his friends’ lives. Now, imagine that same man at the helm of power somewhere in your local community. For example, a local governor. He will definitely help those who funded his political campaign, even if it were some fastfood chain or some car manufacturer.

Favors have always taken out objectivity from the rest of humanity. It is this form of attachment that binds many people, and proves that mankind has not yet evolved from the “tribal” clusters that he or she is part. For all the favors done in the past, those truly deserving of something fail to get it.

Many movies in Hollywood or even independent films showcase how one person’s struggle means so great in a world of patterns where people exchange favors. The one person is the only person to show true care and compassion without wanting anything in return. It makes for a great flick, but the protagonist is an ideal, which means he or she, such a person, may not exist.

In this world, call it cynicism, but it has always been about greed and favors. But hey, sooner or later, you meet someone different, and it is important to not be disillusioned and give them a chance, for the thrill of it.

Text messaging is by far one of the best things ever to happen to the world. The very best thing that happened to communication was the internet. It allowed anonymity, self-regulation, and freedom to publish anything you want, even the most obscene, crazed and frayed things you could think of. Communication evolved into something different. Limited by time, some people tend to chat using incomplete words, or just characters even. “Who u?” while grammatically unacceptable, tends to make it easier and faster to read text messages.

Sure, it can annoy people who love writing and reading, but in that manner, technology is transforming the personalities of people. People can hide behind a desktop or laptop and spout bullying anywhere. When making business proposals online, it is difficult to find the sincerity of the facts, which is why research information is pulled up to prove that the figures are precise. Some people perceive a text or chat message without a smiley as snobby, when in reality, the person was only replying happily.

Let’s focus on that last sentence. While you are reading this post, how do you perceive I really speak? You do not really hear my voice, but you could be amused with the flow of words I use. From here you could judge my personality, but can you really be sure that the tone of this post is a discourse, or a casual conversation?

The internet, along with technology, is making us accept two truths at the same time. Our personalities are not our own. We may put a smiley in a text message to imply the idea that we are happy, but in reality, we typed it emotionlessly, and was only wanting to provoke an emotion on the other end of the conversation.

If this continues, the world can continue to become passive, and will be improving their façade through technology. Hence, hello and goodbye to the truth of everything.

The Syrian Crisis is a big problem; the Ukraine Crisis also is. But, in the end, there will always be a bigger problem, and we fail to recognize that large problem already looming over the horizon.

Countless times, environmental agencies have reported about the world’s carbon footprint already stepping into the sand deep enough to destroy ecosystems and the world’s natural temperature. A report from the IPCC shows the devastating effects of corporation and business-oriented environmental policies that only took greenhouse gas cuts with slight reductions, which never really benefitted anyone except for governments and the same corporations to have a more fragrant name worldwide.

While the world concerns itself over power-plays, ethnic and religion-based conflicts, the world itself is fighting for its very survival at the hands of the same people who would die for their beliefs instead of helping the world fight its battle against the odd inventions of humanity designed to bring in great profits.

Us netizens also only concern ourselves of our freedom to express ourselves and the information brought to us by our computers interconnected through large optic cables under the sea. If the world’s sources of energy died or became exhausted, the world will pretty much be clouded in either a perpetual heat rave, or a cold, global holocaust.

It’s time we did our part to combat the bigger problem that is already looking down on us. One day, what we ignore is the one thing that can kill us all.

In the early days, civilization meant knowing the capability to hunt and survive on your own, or else you can die. Man only took what he needed, and that was it. He was fine with food on his stomach. When he figured out farming did not require him to work so hard, he went for it, the convenience of things. Everyone who wanted convenience followed his idea and thus the first group was born.

Anybody who wanted to know about farming needed the man to teach him or her how to do it properly. The man could only be reached if you knew the people in his group, but you will need to please the other guys first before you get to him.

When I think about it, this particular mentality I described still exists in the world today. If you want to get into showbiz, the noble way is to build your portfolio, then approach some producers and please them (in their own way) to get the things you need. Then, they can connect you to other people until you can finally reach your dream.

Politics makes it easier, but more complicated to understand. Countries could gain more benefits if they agree to provide something the other country wants. To gain advantage, you need to drain your own country first before you are given the opportunity to rise up again.

Wherever you go, you need connections. Even if you live in the internet as an introvert, you make impersonal and emotionless connections with people who have similar interests as yours. You will always need connections

But the thing is, these connections will always trample upon something, one way or another.

Currently, UK law personnel, including lawyers, solicitors and barristers, are protesting against the UK government’s plans to cut £220 million from the £2 billion annual legal aid contributions. The heavy taxpayer-backed legal aid makes it possible for any societal class of UK national to make a claim for any accident or injury. When they cut it, would it tarnish the UK’s compensation culture and budding “benefits tourism?”

I’ll give you a good insight. The compensation culture has its own ups and downs, specifically when people commit whiplash compensation claims. Whiplash injuries, as far as I know, induce nausea and disorientation due to a sharp pain in the neck. They can cost as much as £5000 in a single case. The trouble is that they have no physical mark in the body and their symptoms only appear a few days to a week.

If they cut legal aid budgets, people who like swindling insurance companies, who are defenceless against these claimants because it is more expensive to challenge the claim in court, would be reduced. It would be a great help because it reduces £2 billion from the insurer’s annual repayment for any form of whiplash.

It won’t be an insult to the UK compensation culture and no win no fee solicitors in my opinion, but just a good upstart to avoid legal abuse. Sure, the solicitors get paid less, they might claim the quality of legal services might get reduced, but the bottom line is that they still get paid and there might be possible balance to the UK’s compensation culture and legal system.

For the benefits tourism part, it only helps if anybody knows that you just don’t file a claim for something petty in the United Kingdom.

In light of Japan’s increasing want to gain international favour regarding improving its “peacekeeping” capabilities in Southeast Asia, I’m left to question what the world deems as “offensive” and “defensive weapons.

Based on the articles I read, Japan’s defense forces are made of its own soldiers, air, land and sea vessels. This is normal as I could see soldiers like people you trust your house with, and their vehicles as their security grid in your own home. But why do other countries have “offensive” weaponry? Things like long range-ballistic missiles, rockets, and artillery? I mean, we’re living in a time of peace right? Why are these weapons still existing?

When we read about Syria in the news, we read that people continue to die because of indiscriminate weaponry, yet the US could only slander the Syrian regime for committing atrocities. I mean, come on, a Barrel Bomb is an indiscriminate weapon, a direct message from the Regime that “we do not care who we hit as long as the rebels die.”

Then there’s the issue of chemical weapons. If Syria’s government didn’t own the chemical weapons, then there wouldn’t be any deaths in the world right? Supposedly.

If we’re living in a time of peace, why are there still countries or organisations developing “offensive” weaponry?

Maybe we’re just living in a world of lies, where every country is really at war with each other but all are denying it to ensure the war stays only within the comprehension of the people who need to see it that way.