HOME - all posts    about Elsa     interviews    speaker   
Elsa's Blog


The question: what does it do to just about all of us, when so much is available online for the taking?

Another question: does this relate to the chronic lack of counter-jihad funding?

If so, this is quite a dangerous downside.

Of course people do give. I was so pleased, this April, when the drive to raise funds for legal fees for Tommy Robinson succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. It made all the difference for Tommy. I believe people recognized the urgency of his situation:

This summer, many people also gave to Geert Wilder's defense fund:

But recently an article dropped into my inbox, and that got me thinking:

The central point: so much is available online for nothing, that most people have developed an allergy to paying for anything.

I remember, in childhood, that it was just natural to pay for records, magazines, newspapers, books. It isn't natural anymore - including for me.

Those against us - those on the side of political correctness, of mass Islamic immigration, of Islam - have lots of funding: from Islamic sources, from Soros, from the government (think of all those Human Rights Commissions!!).

My thought: it's to the benefit of those on the side of Islam and the destruction of the West, that people feel entitled to get everything for nothing - because those of us on the side of human rights and freedoms have nothing like the same amount of backing. Every counter-jihad blog has a donate button - and this doesn't lead to full coffers for counter-jihad bloggers.

A friend is frustrated at how few people, from all those who receive her excellent weekly newsletter, give anything when she sends out a (very rare) fundraising email.

On the other hand, a close friend was very upset with me - very angry, actually - for my charging (99 cents) for the Guide and the Big BUT System. According to her, my priorities were all wrong! Her main point: the important thing was that people get my stuff, and having to pay will stop the vast majority of people. Worst of all, I was asking people to pay more if they were passing the works on. How could I!! (So I've stopped that - temporarily anyway- though it feels crazy to me.)

Like the friend who got angry at me, I want the works to reach as many people as possible. But I also asked her: how much could most people really want the works if they were unwilling to pay 99 cents? (I recognize that a minority of people have very limited funds.)

My friend was utterly convinced she was right.

I know it's important to look at our own (including my own) sense of entitlement to receive without giving back when it comes to online things.
This goes against a natural human trait, the desire to reciprocate.

Somehow this innate desire to reciprocate has been turned off in many people. We also recognize the desire to take without giving back in the many politically correct people who want ever more from the state without any thought about paying for this. We recognize this, at its worst, in movements like BlackLivesMatter, according to which blacks are entitled to do everything, including to pull out a gun on police officers, and law enforcement officials are entitled to do nothing to defend themselves or society.

But with many counter-jihad people, too, it's my experience that the desire to reciprocate has, in some ways anyway, often been disabled. What to do? Right now, I'm thinking and writing about it. I'll come back to this topic another time. In the meantime, your thoughts are welcome.

As always, all the best to all who care and dare,




posted Nov 1, 2016



Entitlement vs Reciporocity.
The Dangers of All Free Online.
It means that those
who can fund
the so-called free
have POWER.

Elsa's Blog

top of page

energy swirl
Terms of Service         Privacy Policy

copyright © Elsa, 2012-2020 - all rights reserved
copyright © ElsasBlog.com, 2012-2020 - all rights reserved

All content of this website is copyrighted.
To republish, you must include the link to the webpage.
For any further information, please contact.