IF YOU CAN MAKE IT THERE YOU CAN MAKE IT EVERYWHERE!

Do you know those films and documentaries from your childhood television

where the depicted former villagers or farmers went to the cities "to have a better life"?

I believed this for a long time, that the "poor peasants" had too hard a life and that an existence in the city and a "closing time" after working for an employer was preferable to communal life or that of a self-employed person.
I imagine, that those who fell for it (including myself), were seduced or had simply been curious about such a different life, put themselves in the hands of industry and the environment of the city. Industrialisation ensured further division of labour and this ensured the decline of extended families and communities.

The fact that people left their accustomed lifestyles and communities, went from small-cell, somewhat autonomous associations to parts of larger constructs, seems to me to be an event that continues to this day.

In my eyes, the isolation of the human being is the reason for the feeling of loneliness, of his vulnerability in a life construction that makes where he came from appear weak and unattractive.

Reactivating a cell, living in smaller but more independent communities requires a lot of effort, perseverance and the firm will to undermine the established legislations and regulations for oneself and to create an environment in which such alternative life models are allowed. Countless hours have to be spent arguing with the bureaucracy, convincing people, showing them models, getting them to believe that what you are planning is not going to harm anyone or could be "a danger". In my eyes, this is a viable way to realise life models that do not want to fit into the established.

Examples like Michael Reynolds'

(the video from the beginning of this post) and many others make it clear to me that the way out of the establishment is a hard one and that you really have to know exactly what you want and what you don't want. And how much energy you are willing to invest, just as much frustration you can overcome and how much you can inspire and convince others who don't see it that way but who rule over you, despite everything. So you struggle with regulations and bureaucracy and you need a very long breath to succeed.

Personally, I have lived for forty years without even knowing about it, about the communities that have organised themselves, about the individual examples that have actually also had legal successes and have realised their idea of a somewhat communal life.

Even if one hears about such examples, the courage to undertake such things oneself is not a matter of course. I have also become accustomed to a comfortable life in which everything is arranged for me, and leaving this also has a price.

Even the strongest opponents of compulsory education,

for example, who I know personally, are not prepared to act for their individual case or to face the whole procedure of legal disputes because it costs a lot of sweat and effort and the outcome is uncertain. Nevertheless, people have and do, and the few who evade compulsory education for their children are examples that it can be done.

That is the reason why I do not take complaints about the school system too seriously: if those who are strongly against it, do not take the action (like described above) for themselves, the will to create an alternative is obviously not strong enough and their blames run into a void.

One opponent of the school system told me that she does not like to send her kids back to school, now, that the mandatory masks and tests are gone, she hates being dictated when to get up in the morning etc. etc. but nevertheless she also told me that she has no energy to make herself a case where she tries to get an exception. And that before all things started she took advantage out of the fact that the kids were at school all day, so she was able to work more hours.

I don't judge her. I understand it.

But then, all complaints and finger pointing at "the system" is just talk.

My premise is that social media and blockchain technology with the possibility of making money is not about community, it's about money being offered as a solution to the plight of dependency.

Without people physically working with you, whom you have come to know and trust because of their real presence, no plan to escape the system will come to fruition. Maybe for you as a single person. Or for your micro cell, your family. Through finances. That is not community.

Let's take the idea further that at some point you will be rich enough to buy/build a property and a house.

What then? If you don't have a community around you with the expertise in self-sufficiency, legal and bureaucratic hurdles to overcome, years of professional experience working in self-employed companies, you will stay with the status quo. Without the many hands and expertise of others in your immediate vicinity, you will be left to accumulate money or tokens and you may have achieved what is considered "successful" in crypto, which differs not from "having it made" in the traditional fiat money system.

For me personally, that would be no reason to condemn you. Who am I to do that? I would give myself a moral high ground that would not be appropriate. I did not drop out of the establishment. But I would ask questions when you sell the crypto sphere as a way out, saying it "needs the masses".

Creating an exceptional life model is so difficult, lengthy and also expensive that only a few dare to do it. No "masses" involved.

It is a path full of concessions, compromises, setbacks and disappointments, for which you really have to be very strong, in a good mood and determined. Not only you need a positive attitude but the trust that real life connections are not a failure.

The advertising, as it is often heard here, targets the emotional trigger points. Decentralisation, humanity, feeling taken care of, belonging to a group of like-minded people, having the moral high ground, being able to help, etc.

While it seems clear that advertising can only be done this way and no other way, and that no one really wants to hear that money alone is not enough for a self-determined life and that one will not overcome the mills of bureaucracy and hurdles any other way than making the wolf one's friend and putting up with people who have a plank in front of their head will not be among the advertising slogans.

The "expert" or bureaucrat at the end of the long arm of the law is incorruptible in this respect

because he believes in what the system gives him. He cannot be bribed by any money in the world and must therefore be convinced in other ways. In my eyes, this only works through inspiration and also a large portion of respect in advance into the idea that he is the one who can creatively help these people he considers to be cranks and that he can with his expertise indeed support a positive vision, even though he does not fully share it himself.

So far, I myself had not the nerve, the patience, the expertise and the people to do so. And probably also I lack respect. That is not the problem of those I disrespect, no?

In terms of honesty on a package, that's a lot, isn't it?

It would be like me telling someone who places only the best features and benefits on their packaging to leave that out and tell the truth instead. That his product is ordinary, no?

Or that his product involves working your ass off, working against countless odds and oppositions and that too without losing your good humour.
In fact, you have to talk yourself into things and present the product or business model in a shiny light. Critique then comes across as something that seems to make efforts to talk you out of doing the advertisement.

The reason why I probably don't like buying emotional colored ads is that I worked myself a long time in the media and advertising/PR business.

It is often said that in this blockchain/cryptocurrency system we can care about another. This is an emotional appeal.

I don't think that way. Because caring for another, what does that in actuality mean?

If "care" refers to intellectual exchanges, yes, if it refers to give financial support (upvotes etc.), yes.

No, in terms of being available when your car breaks down, you need a lift from where you are presently located, when someone must get you out of real life troubles, to react spontaneously to an emergency call, there is no way to do so over a distance of thousands of miles. When you need someone to help you in your garden, on your construction site, with your heavy bags to carry, with looking after an old or temporarily invalid neighbor etc. etc. all this idealized carers out of your physical reach can do nothing for you.

You can argue that you will have to pay then for others to do all this. And then you end up right into the system we are at in the present.

Which the advertisement does not tell when it talks about "community" and "care" or "free speech".
Where it is money to substitute what community gives you for free.

I called my dad in the middle of the night when I was out with my friends and we did not succeed to get a lift home from disco. No fees to be payed. When I moved from one apartment to another, it was friends who helped carrying the boxes and furnitures. No fees. If I needed a car repair, it was and is my brother who can do so. No fees. If my friend needs someone to look after her small children when she is away, it's me doing so. No fees. If a party is given by a friend, it's friends who bring over cake, food and beverages. No fees. I could go on and on.

Now, I will reject an assumptions that I maybe had "a nice dad". He was not nice. Most of the times he was unpredictable. Also violent. But not always. You had to take the risk to find out. Also, I was not "lucky to have friends helping me". I was helping them, so it was one hand washing the others.

But as I stay in the digital world, turning my focus more and more inward, in relationship to the virtual relationship, the more I might think all these voluntary and physically real needs would somehow magically take care of themselves and all you really have to do is give someone enough financial cover to pay for said assistance.

Then I contribute to deepening this way of thinking, idealising it, and I probably even aim for an existence that takes away the physical, the strenuous, the uncertainties. We've all seen films like Ready Player One, haven't we? There, such a world is imagined for us over and over again.

It's funny, though, that they don't show boring things like funeral ceremonies or how ordinary women give birth to babies.

Of course, in a world based on the division of labour, you really do want to pay the handyman who comes to your flat to clean the pipes. We also want to be able to pay the outpatient nurse, don't we? These all seem to be very meaningful compensations for the work of others, don't they? But does the plumber also come to the funeral, is the outpatient care assistant present at a family celebration? Probably not, unless one has really known each other over the decades and the local business from childhood still exists today.

This logically leads to the conclusion that without real life physical working and nearby people who I would like to trust and to build a relationship with, a digital work-life would not even be possible. Think of the guys who pick up trash or build streets. Or any other labor work. I could not sit and type here if they weren't out there doing their jobs.
Spare me to pity them, please.

When I was tired of cognitive work in the offices (the most boring places on earth),

I welcomed the opportunity to get my hands on things. I worked at fares where I walked many kilometers a day and did the dishes and the service for the visitors. It was a fulfilling job in its own way. Same with peeling hundreds of eggs and other labor works I did in my past. Selling hovercrafts, for examples. Working behind the bar. Planting flowers in the heat of the desert day in the garden of the riches.
Those seemingly stupid jobs can be the most fun if you don't let it happen to pity yourself. You get tired as hell but on the other hand your brain stops overthinking.

Advertising is simply what advertising is:

an exaggeration of the actual qualities of a thing, an addition of idealised qualities that often do not even exist.

It has to be that way because advertising that promotes a product that someone may never have heard of will become aware of it.

But people seem to think that the more a product is advertised, the more people buy it, the better it must be, the greater its appeal.
As an individual, advertising blurt or hive or any other crypto environment and seeking financial value in return, you have to act as if anyone can do it and be happy with it forever. Of course, that's not true.

The conflicts I observe here often result, it seems to me, from the advertising promises made. Just as they express what this platform "is" or "is not".

For me, it is certainly not a community. As I equate this term with completely different experiences. I would even classify the term as quite confusing and rather think that "interest groups" would be more appropriate. But that is unlikely to draw anyone out from behind their stove, is it?

If the front page of blurt said something like:

Listen up, ladies and gentlemen! Here you can join an interest group! You have to prove your interest first and make yourself useful as a committed member! If you want to get upvotes on your posts in a short time, work hard and a lot and if that's still not enough, take your own money and buy blurt tokens! Without guarantee of success! The interest groups are watching to see if you fit in socially! Your behaviour is both psychologically studied and your numbers are there for everyone to see!

Who would do such a thing?

Basically, what I say must not be said. HaHa!

Can it be said otherwise? Can you promote blurt without promoting it? Can you be successful without talking about success?

I leave it up to the reader to surprise me.