When People Can Not Process What They Are Reading.

Sticky

Years ago I remember taking offence to a Serj Tankian song called “The Unthinking Majority” I thought of the title as extremely arrogant and felt it was disappointing that a political artist, or at least an artist with politically motivated work, would express himself in such a way.

I took offence to how The Chimp Paradox. was presented as well as I don’t think of it as a good idea to address the masses like they are mongrels.

I don’t talk to people like they are s-t-u-p-i-d, I have no interest in saying “those people over there.” I’m part of this world just like everyone else, I’m not above the law, I will fail, I will be wrong and just because I’m right about certain things doesn’t mean that I will be right about others. (Depending on how you define what is right or wrong). We are all hiding behind statistics funny enough and drag out surveys like a final piece of evidence. Yet statistics can be misleading, which is why every side has “evidence” to back up whatever claim they might have. Yet once you de-bunk the collection of data, it might not seem as straightforward after all…  someone disagreeing with you politically doesn’t give you the right to dismiss them as unintelligible, unless it has  been clearly debunked time and time again that what they support is inefficient and false. Meaning: that “truth” has been consistently buried and banned on their part so that their “ideology” can prevail well-guarded from justified scrutiny.

” If I disagree with you, you have to be retarded…” is not a particularly well thought out argument. The same goes for name-calling. If you want to pull the “you are an idiot card” you truly need to have a substantial amount of hard evidence, just as if you are going to pull the “you are insane argument.”

Yesterday my brother and I had a very long and interesting conversation as he is currently reading a lot about genes & IQ. This is of course a very controversial topic as the current orthodoxy is that there is only equality. We spoke and agreed about the grandeur of a meritocracy, discussing how evidence shows that the general IQ at universities have increased since “future leaders” are recruited from all aspects of our societies. The general “intelligence” has therefore gone up since education isn’t only reserved for the children of the wealthy. Yet….the dark side of the moon are quotas enforced when politicians decide that they want to lift the “entire population” or 50% of the population up. As amiable as this may sound like it is simply not do-able.

The result will be a collection of educated people, with official papers for jobs that they cannot really do. This might seem un-fair, but it is actually true. (feel free to read up on all of this, there’s lots of information.)

As horrid as it might be, 50% of the population will not be geniuses. If you drown people with knowledge this will not change as their brains just cannot process the information. This is of course very depressing if you fundamentally believe in “giving everyone a fair chance” by raising the population up, stretching towards national greatness. I take it that this is why those who “headhunt” for the best have to look internationally, to poach “the best people” for their projects.

Yet among the best you also have some cases of those who over think to such an extent that they almost think themselves into idiocy. That’s when  degenerate social constructs are presented to the world, as it might make sense logically if you disregard the human factor or if your brilliance is restricted to one field. There are also those who use elaborate sentences, spending an enormous amount of time on research only to be biased or completely off the hook in terms of their conclusions. The mind is a tricky beast.

Different groups of people have different trait frequencies. There is a plethora of information regarding this. I’m currently reading articles that would certainly come across as “controversial” to all of those who subscribe to the notion that ” we are all created equal.” That said, just because we are “all created differently” doesn’t mean that civil liberties should only be reserved for a small group. I suspect that the furore against “admitting that genuine diversity exists” reminiscent of mass hysteria happens, because people don’t want the idea of “this group being better than that group” gaining ground once again. My point is that “supremacy” or feelings of superiority will emerge regardless, as people will always “find something” to make them “stand out,” even if it is not “legitimate.”

Whether it is a financial situation making someone feel superior to those who are destitute or whether destitution raises ones victim status to such heights as to make someone morally superior. Grievances can be perceived as legitimate and worthy of punishment by the state directed towards those guilty of wealth. The rich person might feel superior but the poor will too, as their struggle makes them superior morally speaking. Rich = mean, poor = good. In terms of appearance it is “all about personality” since slim and/or pretty = mean while fat and/or ugly = nice. A person who looks good and uses this as an asset might feel that this is the “ace up their sleeve,” but just as this can create a sense of “I’m better than you” the traditionally unattractive can relish in their misery by again being seen as the “victim” or “challenging traditional standards of beauty.” Someone who is good at school/academics and/or good in any other field such as sports, music, business you name it, will feel that this is their “ace” whereas those who aren’t good at anything at all can take pride in being morally virtuous since they are unambitious. They are nice because they will not make anyone else “feel bad” by beating them in a competitive sense.

Being honest about “diversity” is not the same as treating people horribly. It means being honest and aware of the challenges a nation faces, both internally and internationally. How can one create the best school system for example if people are in denial? Maybe it is a good idea to focus more on practical training than merely theory designed for the brainy? Maybe a division at an earlier age would be an idea, so that those who hate reading could thrive by learning “how to be handy?” Maybe segregating the genders, so that boys can be approached like boys without being reprimanded for not being like the girls could benefit boys who are falling behind in the effeminate education system?  What will result from such a religious devotion to modern orthodoxies as we have today is the firing of any academics who dare to uphold “the truth,” which brings to mind the popular representation of “the dark ages.”

It seems like our enlightenment has gradually brought us closer to darkness since any truths violating the  “feelings” of a group, regardless of how marginal the group is, are discarded or left in obscurity. Writing about democracy, in fact mentioning and addressing in-depth any of the issues mentioned above could result in volumes upon volumes of material, which is what we supposedly have academics for. They are not there to be fired if their findings collide with the “values” of our modern “dictatorship of goodness,” it is their job to find the truth or to seek to find the truth through empirical evidence.

To demonstrate how frustrating it is with people who cannot process information that isn’t even particularly complex, I’ve included a series of screen shots below. This is how democracy looks like in practice, this is why it is easy for critical thinkers, obsessed with “truth” to fall into the unforgiving, melancholic, grip of misanthropy.

On Friday, the 24th of March 2017, these three individuals were trending on FB…

Trending on FB

Katie Hopkins was making waves online due to her commentary about the terrorist attack in Westminster. People were raging because she had the audacity to suggest that England has a cultural problem and that the UK is weak in spirit. Her commentary pretty much addressed what I had been addressing in one of my own blog entries, so I was of course puzzled by the negative reactions she experienced as what she had written seemed spot on. (Unless one chooses to be in denial). While I was scrolling around the timeline connected with the “Hopkins topic” I came across a guy in the USA. I agreed with his entry and shared it on my personal FB.

Online Democracy 1

What followed was a public online argument where the guy who had authored what you see above had to defend himself from people who clearly didn’t understand his original post at all. It is not hard to comprehend what he is saying. An interesting thing to note is that he didn’t know that his post was set to “public….”

Online Democracy 2

Obviously I’m trying to protect the identity of these people, as one does…You can see that one individual agrees, then one is clearly disgruntled about Hopkins, someone else agrees, but then enters a very typical argument: “rather __________, than racist.” This is a slogan that has been advocated by Swedish Feminists in particular.

Racist Clear.

What you see next is a very typical argument…”the guy was British.” Well…to be fair no he was not…This was a muslim man of foreign descent, who happened to have a British passport and citizenship…in this day and age that is not really the same as being from that particular nation. A woman of absolute muslim descent, walking around in full traditional, muslim dress, is not Norwegian just because she happens to have a Norwegian passport. She is a citizen yes, and is lucky to live in a western country, where you can enjoy the full benefit of citizenship regardless of where you originally come from. The lady (note how these individuals are women) clearly does not understand the argument from the American man. Her conclusion is that he is “racist clear” whatever that may mean…..

Enters a proper Racist.

Then enters a proper Racist. This clearly illustrates what I’ve been addressing on my blog in so many of my entries. The guy who initially started this discussion has up to this point engaged in arguments protecting himself from the false accusation that he is racist, then enters a real racist, who generalizes and is completely unapologetic in his views. An argument then ensues between the “accused-non-racist” and the “I’m-proud-to-be-racist-racist.” The leftists have succeeded in destroying the meaning of the word “racist” just as they’ve dismantled the word “hate” as used in “hate speech.” False accusations of people being “brown shirts” have taken away the severity of “you are a Nazi” since everyone who at this point questions the left in any way is labeled “literally Hitler.” The unavoidable result is that people will just get nauseated whenever the WW2 argument is brought up, and not for the “right” reasons…..people might even start saying “yeah…what did we really fight for? Maybe the Nazis should have won?” these type of sentiments will probably become more widespread as a result of the left’s way of arguing, rather than an explosion of pro-Nazi sentiments. In other words, if you poke someone long enough they’ll get sick and tired of your bullshit.

Exit Nazi & Permission to share posts

A certain somebody asks for permission to use this discussion in a blog entry….the racist from the previous frame, admits that he is proud to be what he is.

Enters random guy.

Another character enters claiming the “he was British argument” before the classical “IRA argument” is brought up. In fact this whole thread illustrates all the common narratives in the current political climate. Note how the “new arrival” in this thread uses the “fake news” narrative. The American who accidentally ended up in a public discussion, that ended up highlighting all of his points due to the contribution by those who are hating on him, is becoming tired….as can be understood by his posting below…

the IRA argument

Argument continues

The American who started the thread tries to conclude the discussion, at this point he also adds one of his comments in the thread into his original post, in order for people to see where he is coming from. The lady with the “IRA argument” clearly can not let it go, so another discussion then ensues with an evidently tired American, baffled by the inability to process basic information displayed by those attacking him….

Arguing Online.jpg

The thread, as it looked like at that point, ends with this:

Conclusion

This discussion alone prove the points I addressed above. It would have been one thing if these screenshots were my only evidence…..but no…hold on… I got more……

The argument below is more sophisticated in nature due to how the participants express themselves. Regardless of this the topic is the same; I’m calling this sequence ” The Oxford Argument.”

OA1

The post attracted one individual who decided to express his dissent….this was counter-attacked by a guy who was clearly interested in commencing a discussion.

OA2

OA3

OA4

OA5

” I read that paragraph but I just hear racism.” Again that same old card is used in an incorrect manner. Also note how these individuals perceive Muslims as the victims and any precautions on the part of “the west” as unjustified racism. The argument is made from “the dissenter” that concerns about Muslim supremacists are justified, especially when seen from a historical perspective. This of course clashes with the current orthodoxy or the false enlightenment claim, that all men are created equal. By admitting that there is an enemy you are merely engaging in discrimination. Even when “the dissenter” specified “NOT ALL muslims” it was still concluded that he was a racist and “good riddance.”

My last example before I conclude my entry stems from my very own Twitter. Yes you’ve read that right. I launched this blog a couple of years ago at the request of my fans, not really knowing what my blog would be about.  I’m not a “pink blogger” I like to read, and enjoy to think, discuss and write about what I’ve read. I’m a virtuoso musician and would classify myself as pretty geeky. My blog entries where I’ve written about personal matters have proven very popular and overall I’ve certainly seen that people adore entertainment while abhorring intellectual discussions. I’ve shared my blog entries on my Twitter and in my entries I usually provide people with links to the articles and/or YouTube videos that inspired me to write that specific blog entry, so that people can see my “sources.”

This year I received a request to do an interview about my entries for the very first time. I was asked about the content on my blog regarding Islamism mainly, since it seemed like the interviewer was obsessed with ‘the terror threat.” I replied to the best of my ability and said among other things this:

“It’s obvious that there are some who are just born with a “complaining gene.” We are spoilt in our part of the world. I don’t think there’s ever been a point in history where people had it better. There is healthcare for everyone, there is so much food that the poor are obese, everyone has access to some sort of education, pollution levels are much better than they were under the industrial revolution for example, you will not be imprisoned or chemically castrated just because of your sexual orientation, women can get an education, work their way up into the system. You can come from a minority background and become the leader of a nation or go into important government positions in a country that you weren’t even born in. We’ve come as close as we can get to Utopia and should just be happy, but no. Then you get people complaining about trans-gender bath room issues, micro-aggressions, sexist snow-removal and pronouns. There is no end to the stupidity. I believe in equality when it comes to the starting point and opportunity, but it has now been brought to my attention that those who talk about egalitarianism usually advocate equality when it comes to outcome. Which doesn’t make any sense to me.”

I also said this:

“Yes, there are plenty of disturbing videos of this, I’ve posted some of them on my blog. You got angry young Muslim men shouting and then you got angry young white men shouting. Looks like a mess, especially if tensions escalate.”

Then you got this:

“I assume that the majority are afraid, because people like to conform and don’t want to be ostracised. They see what happens to those conservatives and classical liberals who speak out and decide to stay quiet, whereas those who shout the loudest are those who hate immigration because they actually are real racists and real nazis.”

…and this:

“What it is that we want immigrants to “integrate into” for example is a question nobody is asking. We keep on mentioning vague values, that apparently are “our shared values,” but it can easily seem that we don’t really have a cultural identity anymore. It is not strange that foreigners should be horrified at the fractured families of the West or the unintelligible mainstream entertainment we have that produce nothing but icons of degeneracy and vulgarity. High culture of beauty and excellence is something we have sacrificed on the altar of modernity. Spirituality and faith has been crushed and is routinely mocked. Masculinity is actively worked against in the school system. It is understandable that people would be reluctant to “integrate” into this. Let’s not forget that. After all, why should anyone respect a culture that doesn’t even respect itself?”

If you read through these segments you will understand that this is not a racist talking, but someone who is concerned, especially if you read the whole interview. What I say is critical of militant Islam and the effects of “the change” that has been imposed on Europe. When asked about: “What about Islamism in Scandinavia? Have you been back to Norway recently? What do you see happening there?” I replied in an honest way; describing a country where immigration has become stricter but where certain specific changes were observed by me during some visits back home:

“1-Norway has changed to such an extent that my father and I were the only white people at a supermarket up in the mountains, deep into the fjord land.
2-I’ve had elevator rides where I was the only white person and the only woman not wearing a burqa.
3-I’m not even Norwegian anymore, I’m an ethnic-Norwegian apparently.
4- I visited my grandmother some years back and there was a terror warning on the news “today the terror alert has been raised to severe.” That, in particular is ridiculous. Why are we supposed to accept this as a new reality?”

First of all it is important to specify that Norway is not America. If you live in the USA and you get surprised by encountering an Afro-American or a Native-American, well then you got issues. America has always been a diverse “nation,” there was diversity among the caucasian population, there was diversity due to slavery and the “original population.” Norway is not America. We got Norwegians and then we got Samis, who are nomads living up in the North, moving around between Northern countries with their reindeer, etc; It is just and right to question the changes that have been imposed on Scandinavia, as these are neither natural nor justifiable IF they result in demographic displacement or gradual demographic replacement. It is racist, to support this type of activity and the fact that these type of measures are supported and initiated by ethnic Europeans is nothing but extraordinary. (Obviously I have to specify that there is a major difference between some immigrants here and there, and demographic displacement/replacement. I hope that people can comprehend that….) It cannot be justified in any way, that English people should all of a sudden find themselves becoming minorities in certain parts of their country, nor can it be justified that there are “no-go-zones” in Sweden, but an interesting thing to note, and this is important, is that I highlight that the worst of these changes is the terror threat, that we are supposed to treat as “normal.” 

So far so good, one should hope, but no. Even though it should be ridiculously easy to follow what I’m writing above, I received this tweet after the release of the interview:

evil CIC 2

Curious I decided to check out this individual and saw this:

CIC evil1

First of all I said in the interview that I don’t live in Norway anymore. I also said that “my father and I were the only white people at a supermarket up in the mountains, deep into the fjord land.” This describes a supermarket. I also describe being in an elevator as the only woman not wearing a burqa. I’m clearly describing a country undergoing radical fundamental changes. But I’m not describing an entire town, and seen from a European perspective it all makes sense, if you’ve followed what I wrote above. In the interview I can be quoted as saying ” I’m not even Norwegian anymore, I’m an ethnic-Norwegian apparently.” Again this goes to demonstrate a “core change” within a Nation. I’m not even Norwegian anymore.” So you see a change of word-use in terms of how an ethnic group is being addressed and labeled. This is not minor. Obviously this is not hillbilly talk, as a hillbilly would probably behave like this:

Enters a proper Racist.

Some months later I received another Tweet from a different individual as a response to a blog entry I had published on January the 30th, 2017.

twitter argument.jpg

These are some quotes from the blog entry that he was referring to:

“We need to make sure that we advance into the future “with baby steps” so that we can successfully integrate the new-Europeans into the fabric of our societies, without losing ourselves.”

We are reaching a tipping point & the only sensible course of action would be to do everything in our power to prevent escalated chaos within our continent.”

“….then why not keep those who like it here & have integrated well, while sending out those who do not?”

“If “refugees” thrive at the expense of the original European population, it will create anger and resentment within the ethnic populace and rather than directing this anger towards government figures, we run the risk of this sentiment being directed towards innocent muslims.”

These things are clearly not written by someone who hates ALL Muslims. This is obviously written by someone who is concerned about EVERYONE. And someone who is critical towards Militant Islam. No wonder that people give up, when those who are “moderates” or tempered in their assessment, are accused of being “racist.” I did the dumbest thing and decided to engage with this man in a short Twitter argument as I obviously assume that my fellow human beings “can understand what I write.” I’ve made the mistake of expecting people to be reasonable. Which brings us back to the very beginning of my very long entry…. Here are the Tweets:

T1

t14

T2

T3

t10

t11

t12

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

Again, I’m obviously not racist, but then comes the kicker:

t9

At this point I realised that what I was engaging in was pointless….When I then saw the thread further up in this entry later that month I realised that I had to write a blog entry. It is a serious issue that so many cannot comprehend the information that they are presented with. Sure, it is tough to read science papers, especially if written in an academic language, it is difficult to read ancient literature, of course this is hard, but none of what I shared on here today is. None of it. None.

This is why politicians talk “down to people” this is why there are PR agencies that are commissioned to create and manufacture easy slogans and “perfect” official personas. People who never say anything that contradicts or challenges the orthodoxy, even when they are aware of how bad things are, such as Podesta. This is how corporations get away with blood on their hands, because they are good at marketing and making their products “human.” How healthy is this for a society and how healthy is it for the west? Not particularly, which I’ll address in my next entry, where I’ll discuss an article I read some days ago about “Politics vs. Emotionalism.”

The Class Struggle – (the daily left-wing newspaper).

Standard

Something has to be seriously wrong with our society when a newspaper “founded in 1969 with a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist platform,” proves to be a remarkably good read 😮 Yes I know … I found this paper on the floor next to the entrance door of my residence in Bergen while I was there for work. The paper had been opened and folded in such a way that an article comparing “the reformation” to Islam was visible, of course I had to read what pro-Islamist non-sense this was. The article that caught my attention was cringe worthy as would have been expected, but the rest of the newspaper contained a lot of fantastic articles actually. Who would have thought?

The paper includes several Islam-critical entries in the front. They are well-tempered and encompass the difficulties faced by those who try to reform the religion and no promises that these attempts at “reform” will result in some sort of Utopia. The newspaper is also critical towards “Islamsk Raad” (Islamic Council) appointing a Nikab wearing woman to one of their positions; the hiring has led to a “schism” within Norway’s main Muslim organisation. The newspaper celebrates those teachers who stood up against the Norwegian Nazi Party under “the occupation,” offering an uplifting read and important points. Yes Norwegians should learn more about WW2, of course, such as the fact that a lot of those active in the resistance were … (drum roll) communists.

The newspaper is also clearly supportive of the idea of “bringing jobs back home.” Standing up against outsourcing to other countries is something that Nationalists and Patriots normally promote, with those on the left shrieking about “the global village.” One of the articles voices concerns regarding Norwegian Electricity export, as Norwegian citizens are taken for a ride financially. What’s really surprising though is Klassekampen’s criticism of the “fake news” narrative. Yes you read that right. The article is one of the best I’ve read in a very long time. It is remarkably soberly written from a centrist perspective, offering the viewpoint that appointing three major media outlets in Norway to monitor “fake news” is ridiculous.  Not only is it biased to assume the “moral authority” of state-owned NRK, or the two popular-lefties newspapers Dagbladet and VG, it would also be impossible for the three giants to get to the “bottom of things,” as Scientists go on and on about the same issues only for it to result in “inconclusive” findings and/or solutions a lot of times. The article is honest about how “the people” don’t trust journalists and how easy it is to create “echo-chambers.” The article is written by Bjoern Vassnes and is worthy of a translation to English so that more people can enjoy it.

The newspaper also offers a very interesting article authored by Oddbjoern Magne Melle, concerning NATO and how both leftie Olav Oksvik and righty C.J.Hambro were opposed to Norway becoming “trapped in the NATO feudalism.” Klassekampen also writes about how the fragmentation of Great Britain can become the result of Brexit, offering some interesting historical facts and perspectives. Nowhere can the “Marxism” be sensed until you reach the “chronicle & debate” section … here it flourishes like a spreading fungus initiated by a feminist assault on “the traditional woman.” The idea of “women being homemakers” is of course very “triggering” and militantly fought against at all levels. It is not all doom and gloom however as Stein Foerde and Frode Barkved stand up to defend Rudolf Steiner, a man who is constantly under fire in Norway, as the pop-media are on an endless witch hunt, against “the cultish Waldorf School.” I’m happy to see that some do their best to defend the reputation of Steiner, as Steiner Schools in Norway offer affordable private schooling. Yes, they are “alternative” but why the outrage? Maybe because the mainstream wants all Norwegian kids to be indoctrinated in the exact same way? The  article is a cleverly, sophisticated assault on the fabrication of facts by Ebbestad Hansen who is completely “owned” by the two criticising him. The newspaper concludes with a news story about Turkey’s desire to shut down a “Kurdish” tv-channel in Norway. I had no idea there even was such a thing….

So what do you say when a Marxist newspaper proves to be so very interesting? Maybe it appealed to me due to the lack of “an overarching narrative” so transparently displayed in New Scientist: Secret Map Of The Brain., maybe I enjoyed it due to the diversity of viewpoints? Sure I disagreed with a number of the articles, the cultural Marxism was on full display in terms of “the art” they promoted, but overall I felt that this was one of the most balanced, well-nuanced papers I have read in a very long time, if ever. I don’t know if this speaks volumes about our times  or whether Klassekampen has become less “revolutionary” and more moderate. Whatever it is, they’ve certainly collected an impressive arsenal of writers.

 

 

 

 

New Scientist: Secret Map Of The Brain.

Standard

Overarching narratives. That’s what becomes obvious when reading New Scientist. Don’t get me wrong I love “the concept” of a Science Mag but I ask myself why there is such limited diversity when it comes to ideas? From reading New Scientist, with their variety of contributors, one would think that climate change caused by humans is canon. Nowhere in the Mag and in fact in none of the issues that I’ve ever picked up, are “sceptics” represented so as to offer an alternative view. The same can be said of the apparent furore over Trump. It is obvious that his administration is perceived as the greatest threat to Science since Old-European theocracy, same with Brexit, even though Alex Halliday on p.47 points out that matters may not be as serious as people would like to think in terms of getting funding and working in a post-Brexit Europe. The editorial in this issue displays hostility towards “new media” as it celebrates that ” British MPs last week grilled Google, Facebook and Twitter representatives over their ineffectual efforts to police their platforms for abuse and hate speech. A draft law in Germany has threatened huge fines if they don’t improve how they operate.” If you look beyond the various articles you can sense an overarching political narrative which makes New Scientist no better than those who they would probably refer to as “unreasonable” … as they themselves are obviously true believers and guardians of certain values. Values that would clash with anyone believing that the internet should remain free, for example. Which is a pity. The issue offers a couple of interesting book reviews, which made me curious. I intend to check out the following:

  • The Vaccine Race: How scientists used human cells to combat killer viruses (Meredith Wadman)
  • The Imagineers of War: The untold story of DARPA, the Pentagon agency that changed the world (Sharon Weinberger)

My last comment is that the letters provided by the readership of NS present an impressive vocabulary and are in some cases better written than the main articles in the Magazine. Maybe NS is fascinating due to their readers, they certainly display a superior word-use in contrast to those who are paid to write for the Magazine, so make sure that you check out the last few pages.

Such a thing

Standard

There can surely be no doubt in the mind of anyone who have been exposed to genuine diversity that there are clear differences between not only races but ethnicities within races. Why this is controversial at this point baffles me. You are not a racist for simply pointing out observable and/or scientifically proved contrasts. Only ideologues and/or those shielded from true diversity will ever find these type of articles offensive. May the truth prevail, in all things.

West Hunter

“there’s no such thing as race” is a standard sentence in the United States and Europe. Conventional wisdom, and like so much conventional wisdom, false.

Of course there is.

First you need to define your terms. I would suggest that any population – a group whose members have mated within that group, almost entirely, for some time – and has experienced strong-enough natural selection to change significantly in some trait that we give a shit about can usefully be considered a race. Or a ‘goklu’, where goklu has exactly the same operational meaning as race, without having yet acquired any toxic associations. Low levels of inward gene flow allow selection to change the frequencies of alleles, so mating within the group is important. Usually this endogamy is a natural consequence of geography (not much gene flow across the Atlantic before Columbus) but sometimes it has been caused by social rules…

View original post 791 more words

Patron Saints of Europe.

Standard

I was looking  for a symbol that could represent Europe besides the EU flag. On my quest for this I came across the following Saints listed below … I guess I was thinking of Athena, patroness of Athens while I was searching for a “unified Europe symbol” I couldn’t really find much besides what I’ve listed ↓

  1. Saint Benedict.
  2. Saint Catherine of Siena.
  3. Saint Ansgar. The patron saint of Scandinavia.
  4. St. Teresa Benedicta of The Cross.
  5. Bridget of Sweden.
  6. Saint Cyril & Saint Methodius
  7. Saint Scholastica, the twin sister of Saint Benedict.
  8. Jan Hus. A very interesting read about one of the “predecessors” of Martin Luther.
  9. Christina, Queen of Sweden. An interesting read about the “tomboy Queen” who converted to Catholicism & abdicated her throne.
  10. Eternal King and Patron Saint of Norway: Saint Olaf.
  11. Saint Magnus Erlendsson. A patron Saint of Norway.
  12. Religious Retreats.
  13. Croatian Hand Tattoos.
  14. What the KKK and the & Catholic church have in common.
  15. Odin.

 

The End Is Nigh…..(yawn)

Standard

So Marine Le Pen lost yesterday … I guess it is time for me to start a riot, whine all over my social media, unfriend those who disagree with me while lamenting that the end is nigh…..

I’ve seen countless posts on FB celebrating that “Democracy won” in France this Sunday; because as we all know: Democracy only works when those you cheer on win!  (http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264865/stop-hating-white-people-and-maybe-theyll-vote-you-daniel-greenfield)

I sincerely hope that Macron will do a good job. Do I think he will? No. Apparently he believes in the creation of a new “Eurabian Identity” according to what I’ve heard…so no wonder then that he was endorsed by anti-western leaders such as Obama and Merkel… in fact such endorsements should be enough to freak out anyone who cares about their country and its safety if you think about what these type of leaders support:

I personally find Macron’s victory puzzling, especially since France has suffered so much at the hands of Islamists. It is a country that gives off the impression of losing itself completely so it would be natural to expect some sort of backlash…..or maybe people have given up?

As we all know it is “perfectly normal” to be plagued by foreign holy warriors … who either undermine their “host” population discreetly or openly … I don’t buy into Khan’s narrative that terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city” I honestly consider it one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard from anyone ever, but … each to their own.

Maybe the French don’t care about their identity anymore, maybe they don’t even know what it is….maybe they’ve bought into the narrative that the greatest threat to Europe are conservative leaders, who knows. They’ve cast their vote. Let’s see what happens next.

Gi Aldri Opp! “Never Give Up!” by Heidi Løke.

Standard

This was a very straightforward and easy read authored or co-authored by one of the world’s best handball players. Heidi comes from a very atypical Norwegian family by today’s standards. If I remember correctly they were 7 siblings in total, raised by very religious and traditionalist parents. Maybe it was to counter this that the opening of the work was so very vulgar … the book is off to a shocking start where it is described how Løke was trying to make her genitalia more like a penis, as a child, in order to be more like her brothers … (straight up the alley of any post-modernist in other words)….after this opening the book goes on to reveal a “good Christian girl” from a very respectable family of good standing in the community without neither divorce or any other official scandals.

Her brother played on the National team for male handball players and is refered to as her big hero; she writes about all of her siblings in detail and ultimately dedicates her book and her victories to her parents who were very involved with all of their children, despite her father working several jobs. I’m assuming that her mother was a homemaker as no profession is mentioned. It is described how she would cook several meals from scratch everyday, to provide every child with what he or she wanted. According to Løke, they were fed to be sturdy sportsmen/women.

Heidi describes an ideal Norwegian upbringing … before technology made us all too busy to just go and knock on the door of our peers …. They were not wealthy, but were certainly an extremely close-knit family, with Heidi moving home to her mum and dad on several occasions despite being in her 20s. Considering how Norwegian society emphasises independence at all costs, it is certainly encouraging to read about a more old-fashioned family.

Heidi reveals some of the hardships that professional athletes have to cope with,  but I regret that she doesn’t go more in-depth in regards to her injuries, etc; It is especially shocking to read the sequence dealing with her coach in Hungary, where yelling at the players and weighting them in front of the entire team was the norm. Abusing athletes psychologically goes against anything I’ve ever read about successful coaching, Heidi also writes in her book that the experience certainly made her aware of how well you are treated as a sports person in Scandinavia. Still it certainly raised my eyebrows when I read about how she was treated as “replaceable” by her Norwegian club before she went on to become a living legend. It is especially interesting that she had to supplement her income when playing for a professional team in Norway and that she was pretty much “taken for a ride,” since her value as a player increased without her salary reflecting this until she fought for a raise….

One would think that athletes would be treated with a little bit more respect…especially if active on the national team……

As I said the book was extremely easy to get through. It only took me an evening. It would have been interesting if the book went a bit deeper, describing in detail how she prepares herself for her matches, etc; It gives off the air of being a superficial read, but I’m guessing that she didn’t want to bore her fans with too many “geeky” details.

If anything, the book could be used as an argument as to how important it is to have the support of a close-knit family and how family values needs to be more prioritized in our “fractured” modern progressive society.