A while back @Dr. Rice wanted me to write a manifesto or a thesis. I don't want to because my opinions are always changing. Or evolving, rather. But I'm finally compelled to lay down a few maxims and possible solutions for future situations with the whole Invisible Children fiasco. Not Invisible Children per se but what they represent, which is abundant all over the world. These aren't concrete but the more I think about them and research them, the more they make sense. Also, I make sure not to advocate something without historical precedent. Theories are for fools. For convenience, a tyrant is a person who forces their will on others by using force. The first and arguably most important maxim is gun freedom. Gun control is the greatest of tyrannies because it allows all other tyrannies to take place. All who advocate gun control are either tyrants, shamelessly shill for tyrants or are the unwitting dupes of tyrants. There's a fourth category which I'd call shitheads or mini-tyrants. Basically, those are the people who are tyrants but lack any sort of organised power. They usually end up knowingly propagating for tyrants because they hate everything or they end do something like shoot/blow up a place. The former is actually more dangerous than the latter. Anyway, tyrants can't efficiently tyrannise an armed population for obvious reasons. In order to keep tyrants in check their must be total gun freedom. That means no ban (or acceptance of bans) on any guns or explosives. It's better to deal with the odd mini-tyrant who blows up a clubhouse and kills a dozen people (who would no doubt be hunted down mercilessly) than being powerless in the face of tyranny, regardless of what said tyranny calls itself. If you look at the numbers, an organized tyrant always ends up killing at least a thousand times more than the mini-tyrants he's supposedly keeping in check. Needless to say, never trust somebody who offers to protect you in exchange for giving them power over you. The second maxim is to respect the rule of supply and demand. It doesn't matter what bullshit ideology or philosophy you advocate, if you end up ignoring or attacking supply and demand then people will die and many more will suffer. That's why there are so many third world nations. That's why millions died under feudalism and why tens of millions died under socialism. You ignore this at your own peril. Assuming you yourself aren't a mini-tyrant. In which case shut the fuck up. This isn't just governments who cause problems. Charities and genuine humanitarians do it, too. Even when they think they're trying to do good. They end up flooding a place will free/cheap food and put all the locals who produce/sell food out of business. This, obviously, solves poverty in the short term but creates more poverty in the long term. An obvious solution for this would be to buy from locals and give to locals, so as not to fuck up the local economy. Better yet, lease (for free or for dirt cheap) land/animals to those who're starving so they can sustain themselves and raise the standard of living for the area. Otherwise you're just prolonging their suffering. Third maxim is to oppose war. Any organisation (especially if it styles itself as an advocate for protecting human rights) that advocates military intervention (invasion/occupation or supplying tyrants and mini-tyrants) is no better than a terrorist organisation. In fact, since their advocating involves a lot more deaths and destruction than that which terrorists creates, they're much worse. These people tend to advocate gun control and ignore supply and demand. There is no immaterial thing I hate more than hypocrisy and these people are the embodiment of it. They think people should be protected but also advocate that which causes them to become harmed. Usually they advocate the US, EU, UN, NATO or some combination to intervene. Every single time this happens the occupational forces pick sides in conflicts (they have to otherwise they can maintain control) and it always ends with horrible things happening. Usually outright genocide. Paradoxically, those who advocate against genocide are its strongest enablers. In wars all tyrants and would-be tyrants need to be opposed. All who wish to defend themselves, their property and their community need to be helped. Now, maxims aren't worth shit. All they are are words on paper and tyrants wipe their asses with these words each and every day. For practicality, a transnational organisation needs to be created. Said organisation would combine the best of any and all non-governmental organisation. (Government is the embodiment of tyranny because it can only exist by tyrannising. It cannot sustain itself otherwise.) If people are suffering under a tyrant or might suffer under a tyrant then the organisation would sell weapons to said people for next to nothing or give them weapons for free. It would train them in their use and would teach them how to organise themselves in order to make the best use of said weapons. It wouldn't, under any circumstance, intervene militarily themselves. Under strenuous circumstances it would send unarmed and experienced officers to help the people tactically. When people are starving or otherwise mired in poverty it would lease them the means which they could and teach them in their use. Regardless what idiots say, wars aren't profitable for anyone. All they do is waste resources that would otherwise go to improving people's lives and lowering the cost of living. Even those that make a buck will eventually be killed off via inflation caused by the lack of resources. So said organisation needs to help people make productive farms, then productive factories. Not only will this enrich those mired in poverty but it will allow the organisation to eventually turn a profit through trade which will in turn allow them to project themselves in other places thus helping more. Said organisation wouldn't discriminate and would, for all practical purposes, be atheist. It would, however, ally itself with others who would and can help others, including religions. Hypocritical or proxy NGOs (non-governmental organisations) should be revealed by said organisation as the frauds they are. While initially said organisation would rely on charitable donations (preferably by wealthy philanthropists) it should eventually be self-sustainable. Needless to say, I'm not all that concerned with writing about how the world should be "saved" because it's blatantly obvious. TLDR: If you didn't read this then don't post in this thread. If you don't understand this then ask me a question.