Judgement

Over the past couple of months I have come to question the morality of my behaviour; a scary prospect of life to deal with.

What are morals?

I feel morals are rules we assign to ourselves as to not bring harm to others and ourselves. Morals keep us from raging down a self destructive path, knocking down everyone obstructing the way for the sake of our own emotions. Yet I question what stops my morals being very different to yours. Maybe I think killing small animals because they are an inconvenience to my life is acceptable, yet you think it is the most selfish, condescending and immoral behaviour known to man!

I am aware that I am highly emotionally attached to others judgement. Could this reflect my desperate attempt to get every one I know to love me, at risk of my self esteem plummeting? Except, when the judgement is rained upon me, it doesn't make it right. I state this and not question it; nobody wants to be told they have acted wrongly. So why do "we" take what other's think, say, feel, so personally? Maybe you don't. Shall I meet you in hell?

HELL! If what they say about God is true, then I'd like to humbly assume my opinion was valued. I'd like to think the almighty won't condemn me to eternal pain and suffering, just because I believe drinking until blindly intoxicated is acceptable. I'd like to think me and "him" could agree to disagree at the very least. All I am proposing is, if one man, woman, thing, spirit has the power to decide what is right and wrong and what punishment is therefore deserved; it's time to start re-evaluating what purpose we have on Earth.

This post is short and dull. Much like how I feel when I listen to others spreading their moral beliefs and judgment as something we should abide by.

As always- Klinkmillie x

What is freedom?

Ever feel like you're being watched? Do you feel like you are never truly alone? I wish I could say you were crazy because the tragedy of the situation is that you're not being haunted by a supernatural force of energy; reality is much less extravagant. Sadly, you are being watched by a poorly paid hawk eye who is spying on your every move.

Glad I caught your attention.

We are told that we are free. We're told that we were born into a developed country in which you have the power to control your own fate; as if it was ever yours to control. Statistics are shoved down our throats as if the government feels we are completely starved of their supposed invaluable information concerning the way we should live our lives. We follow their monotonous blue prints of how we should eat, drink, exercise, work, stay positive. Honestly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they told us we should fold instead of scrunch our toilet roll due to the economical and environmental benefits; how adorable.

The point is, can we confidently agree that we are free. Or is the term 'freedom' much too general. Because, what is freedom? Is it having the choice to scrunch or fold? Is it having the choice to become a highly respected Lord when you are from a deprived, abandoned industrial estate? Is it having the choice to be completely alone in this world?

Of course, we could altogether flip the coin on this whole article. Maybe freedom is an ideology we should be afraid of. Freedom must surely mean choice. Yet in monumental choice is the greater possibility of failure. We don't let sheep wander in a territory that's well established with unforgiving predators, but somehow we wish the government would just let us be wild. Somehow, I can see being herded into a secure pen is not all bad.

Unfortunately, being in that pen must certainly mean the same destiny for everyone? A destiny in which all life within the enclosure is stripped of worth then left to die. Slightly dramatic metaphor that puts a long working life into perspective but I'm sticking by it. Is the sacrifice of twenty sheep worth the utter excellence of one.

I can never see myself being at peace with this issue. I am certain I wouldn't appreciate being abandoned on a lone island and told superiorly 'freedom is all yours'. I can appreciate that with fewer choices in this world, their are fewer chances I can land flat on my face; it's a secure safety net. With the exception of the inevitable 'but'. Will anyone ever feel genuinely emancipated from their leaders?

Who am I to say...

Kind regards,

Klinkmillie.

In freedom we turn to sin

When we look at seemingly troubled children who's the first people we blame? Almost instinctively we look to the parents or legal guardians as if it could be nothing more than a series of bad parenting and lack of attention. In the split second that we are throwing silent accusations, we don't stop to think of other factors that may affect how that child behaves. If you haven't already caught on to the stench of this article I am simply discussing the contentious 'nature vs nurture' debate.

To you, this topic may seem exhausted and over discussed but I am compelled to the variety of different arguments and opinions that can convincingly argue on either side of the case. Because of this, surely we must conclude that nature and nurture equally affect the way in which a person behaves; yet I still feel that this can surely only swing one way.

It's true; of course a personality and common behaviour is affected by both genes and surroundings. However, I find myself almost certain that 'nurture' plays a bigger role. My overall opinion is based on this philosophy; in freedom we find sin. Put simply, bring a child up in an environment dominated by drugs and other adultery and let them free into that world, the logical outcome would be that the child turns to the sins that surrounds and drowns them.

But this is where some doubt creeps in.

Bring that same child up in a positively intellectual surrounding where everybody achieves educational excellence you can't guarantee the same outcome for that child in the same way. This must mean that some aspects of the brain rely on inherited genes more readily e.g. intellectual capabilities and other parts are more greatly affected by the development at early years and beyond.

I wish I was able to bombard you with statistical evidence that could convincingly conclude either way but the fact is (pardon  the pun) that there is no statistical evidence out there! It is obvious to see that this tiring debate will be continually discussed until it can be proved and will certainly continue to intrigue me and others around the world.

Kind regards,

Klinkmillie.

Saddled with you for the afternoon.

We've all experienced it. The dread of being confined in a small enclosure with a sibling. The mere feeling is enough to make you feel repulsed, trapped and overly claustrophobic, because what is worse than a brother or a sister? I know. Hating your brother or sister.

It's mostly understandable that the feeling of wanting to be least reminded of home when all you're trying to do is fly away from it is present when you're growing up. And yet that inescapable feeling hits you hard when you remember all the times you looked your sibling in the eye and told them they were not wanted. The wave of guilt drowns you when you realise you destroyed many memories with these few fatal words. Does anyone really know why we try and push the very thing that holds the family together away? I'd love to meet you if you do.

I have divulged in many past experiences with my younger brother and they seem so vivid and current in my memory. It's as if the brain locks them away for safe keeping until it believes you're ready to emerge yourself in your minds own mysteries. It's as if the past speed and determination of one's wish to simply be alone is replaced with an overwhelming urge to make up for lost time. Ironically, my brother is still too young to feel the wrath of consequence and I find myself feeling frequently helpless; my punishment for my past disasters I suppose.

It is not as if I am a bad sister or a selfish one. I would never consider myself to be a bully of any sort. The thought now occurs to me that it can't be all bad that I feel this way. At least I have a conscience? I challenge anyone to look back on their childhood and not feel any regret as to how they sometimes treated their brother or sister. I proudly quote from 'Brothers' by Andrew Forster "I ran on, unable to close the distance I'd set in motion." Forster, I simply couldn't of put it better myself. Once you have turned your back on your sibling, even momentarily, the action can never be taken back; regret never quite rid of.

So each time you feel forced to take that family trip just remember, you can't pick your family. Stop the distance you set in motion before it is much too late.

Inspiration: 'Brothers' by Andrew Foster

Kind regards,

Klinkmillie

Somebody told me that she had a girlfriend.

I often find myself questioning public opinions on certain 'controversial topics'. My attentiveness to be argumentative finds myself opposing common ideas and admittedly I can get carried away. Yet, nothing makes me more sure that being gay is not news.

Being gay is not news because it shouldn't be controversial or something to discuss. When my longest best friend of my life told me she was 'bisexual' I felt nothing more then relief. Relief and maybe even envy that she had already discovered who she was in this world when I was just starting to find out! It was that moment that it finally dawned on me; the only way anyone can ever truly be accepted is if there is no news.

Hear me out before you get confused. Think about this with me; when is something not a focus or talking point? When there is no news to manipulate you into thinking you must look upon it as a disputable act. Understandably, events need to be reported; understandably events such as gay people getting the right to marry is something that needs to be publicised. However, a gay couple talking on a morning chat show may seem like a good charitable thing, but it only raises further interest and opinion, essentially adding more oxygen to the fire.

I can see how this may seem silly so I'll explain further. I can almost hear the exclamations now; "Publicising same sex couples isn't doing harm! It's the best step forward." And who knows? Maybe you're right. But is it so hard to see that making a deal of something that you don't want to be a big deal is massively hypocritical? Personally, I feel shrugging off this 'big deal' with a gentle smile and pleasing attitude would make the unjustifyingly contentious subject something of an everyday occurrence... (well duh;)).

When she told me she had a girlfriend I reacted like anyone else would when their best friend had found someone. You don't need to make a song and dance about the feeling.

Kind regards,

Klinkmillie.

"Derek"

I'd like to talk about "Derek". Derek represents modern society in all its splendid tragedy. Derek represents the way in which we move through life in a zombie like trans in order to achieve societies tunnelled idea of happiness, and yet we can learn a lot from Derek; be at one with Derek.

Derek is an inanimate object that lives within most. It thrives on social inequality and unruly class segregation. It accepts life as it comes and doesn't dare question the running order of it. The inconspicuous Derek within us doesn't mean to be so boringly obedient and doesn't mean to lack challenge because of course that's all it knows; it's been force fed where it lies in the stages of the hierarchy pyramid and unjustifyingly told when to step in line. And it's true. It is much easier to accept the rules that are laid down before us and sign on the dotted line. It's what we are told that we have to do isn't it?

And surprisingly we shouldn't look at Derek as a social disease but in fact learn from it. Somewhere within us is an acceptance of what instincts used to teach us; that there must always be figures that stand above is with more power; life is an existence in which we must comply by the rules. From Derek we learn how to survive. The real question is, is survival enough?

When does life become an act of living rather than existing and surviving? Maybe, just maybe, living is when we are able to take Derek out of its little grey box and put it in a large red circle. We show it that there is more to life then simply managing through and stumbling along; that life can be full of challenge and contribution. Because isn't that what living really is? Isn't living being able to wear the football shirt to a dinner party and still have the pride to express ones opinions with passion and assurance? Isn't living being able to look your leader in the eye and say 'I know you need to hear what I have to say"?

Reality says that there will most likely always be someone that has just the more power than you do. Reality says that we can never completely destroy the Derek within us. But who is reality to question our ideas? Reality is having religion and science running alongside each other and accepting it! Is it so unjustly to believe that power and freedom can cooperate in society?

This is not a pledge to be less like Derek but to simply question just how much you let Derek influence you. No matter how inanimate Derek is, it has the ability to control you. It's about time we control Derek.

Kind regards,

Klinkmillie.

Hello!

The real idea of my blog is to offer an alternative mindset as to what is 'normal'. It is clear to me after always searching for a quirky magazine or website there is just non on offer. Surprisingly or unsurprisingly to you perhaps, I am simply not interested in what the celebrities of this world are eating for breakfast. They mostly just make me feel fat.

Anyway, this blog will hopefully offer an alternative to those let's say 'heavily involved with others business' magazines and maybe will even get you thinking for the rest of the day!

WELCOME TO MY BLOG

Kind regards,

Klinkmillie.