Globalism vs. Localism & The Rise of Nationalism.

A clear advantage that you’ll have if you’ve been raised internationally is that it gives you the ability to compare different population groups and Nation State Systems.

If there is one thing that is clear to me whenever I look at old entries that I’ve written it is that the challenges faced all over the Western world are largely the same.

When a music publication criticises the current U.S. President in the U.S.A. the Italian counterpart uses the same tone and style towards the current Italian leadership.

When there is a movement to remove statues of historical characters in the U.S.A. you see the same unfolding in the U.K.

When a Norwegian ad is deemed racist in Norway since it features Norwegians and a Norwegian flag you see the same type of activism other places in Europe.

What is interesting though is that the backlash to globalism is localised Nationalism from groups who don’t necessarily seem to realise that we all find ourselves in the same boat…

Nationalism is bad when it is expansionist, when a sense of superiority dictates to such an extent that it justifies waging war and invading everybody else. Take this attitude and couple it with redistribution of wealth and you have a true horror-show next door since said group will have to expand in order to find more loot to “redistribute.“

Nationalism that is non-expansionist though ensures the survival of your Nation, especially if you are non-isolationist and keep your “friends“ close.

France for the French, Italy for the Italians, Norway for the Norwegians and England for the English has become the slogan that a lot of people hold on to these days ignorant of the fact that “the elite“ always intermarried and travelled around Europe as they wished…

Rules do not apply to the super rich. One of their privileges is freedom of movement. This is a privilege extended to those who work for them or those fortunate enough to work for corporations with an international reach.

The major bulk of whatever population group though remains stuck. No movement for them!

If the E.U. did something positive it was to enable liberty of movement to everyone, this was probably done to benefit businesses  but what it meant in practise was that more people had the liberty to pack their bags and simply exit.

This resulted in retired Norwegians moving to Spain where they could get more for their money, lots of Italians moving North to get access to jobs and people from Poland going Westwards all in the name of “pursuit of happiness.“

Of course this started to bother the managers of Nation State systems at a certain point, resulting in legal changes intended towards those who dared to leave.

Benefit recipients in Norway realised that they could have a pool, great food and cheap liquor if they went South!

Norwegians with substantial salaries in Norway realised that they could rent or buy villas if they took their Norwegian oil money with them anywhere else in Europe.

If you are well-off or rich up North there is no end to how you can live down South and as more and more people realised this I imagine that more and more bureaucrats were having nightmares and premature seizures.

All of this liberty resulted in non-elites owning properties all over Europe, moving around the continent on a whim while poor people could actually enjoy themselves and not just struggle.

So far so good? Well, apparently not. Because even though the scenario above might seem like a dream come true to anyone who actually believes in liberty the EU (and the UN) decided for some strange reason to invite everyone else into the European Utopia…

Freedom of movement also meant that if you could get across any border into Europe it would give you access to the entire continent. All of a sudden there were hordes of people doing anything and everything to get to Elysium; the source of all of their aid money, the Utopia in the distance.

Which of course can make one wonder if it was the majority who wanted colonialists out of their territories or whether or not this was the wish of specific elites eager to dominate their own territory?

How do you explain fighting for your independence when the result is mass flight Northwards only some years later?

It goes without saying that Europe cannot hold all of the world since Europe is a relatively small continent compared to other territories and when all of a sudden you end up having security threats all around your territory then how can anyone expect civilians to be quiet?

I think the reason for the current rise in Nationalism in Europe can be blamed on this.

For some weird reason though it is a Nationalism that is localised rather than a continental one, which means ignoring the fact that no European Nation stands alone in the challenges that they are facing and that the E.U. does not equal Europe.

This type of Nationalism rejects everything and anything reverting back to how things used to be when only the elite and the ridiculously wealthy could enjoy certain privileges.

It sounds like a political movement that is simply fed up. It also means that it doesn’t seem capable of actually dealing with the root of the problem which seems to be  international non-State organisations….

What you end up having are atomised Nations convinced that their situation is a uniquely unfortunate one, completely convinced that their situation is particularly bad and than the solution to their problems is: them alone, first, in front of everyone else, rather than a network of Nations facing challenges together.

Because this is the reaction observed all over the Western world I’m not quite sure how things will play out. The challenges are not unique, they are largely the same and if you were raised in an international fashion there is no way that you cannot see that.

What will the future bring? I have no idea but it will probably be bumpy for everyone.

 

 

Thou Shall Not Laugh In Europe – The End Is Nigh For YouTube Entertainment!

The end of YouTube as we know it might be near thanks to the western world’s most notorious party-poopers: The EU.

YouTubers doing covers of other people’s music, game-channels, parody channels, top. 10 lists and independently run news sites will be the first content creators to be affected since the law is supposed to protect those who own their own copyright a 100%, in addition to whatever mechanical and/or visual copyright. (I do, or  we’ve paid for a license).

In short you need to own all the content that you upload. It will ultimately be the responsibility of YouTube to ensure that this rule is being followed. Which means that it might only be profitable and safe for social media platforms to approve content from major entertainment companies.

This will literally mean the end of socio-economic mobility and independent brand-building via social media an opportunity open to anyone with an internet connection. It will simultaneously be the end of the youth-culture that our younger siblings and/or children have grown up with.

The face of my younger sister when I explained this to her says it all, I don’t even want to know how my youngest sibling might react.

The role-models of Generation Z are YouTubers, when they meet they talk about bloggers, when they laugh they enjoy parody accounts and memes, their heroes are gamers and influencers and Millennials and other Zers who are doing covers, often times 10x better than the actual original.

Not only will it mean the end of their unique and diverse culture it will also put a lot of influencers and role-models who have not become part of the entertainment establishment out of business.

It is an attack on anyone who is not a baby-boomer, an attack on anyone who is independent, an attack on those who’ve been fortunate enough to be able to create their own playlists and choose their own role-models rather than having content defined for them by whatever establishment.

It is an attack on freedom, youth, diversity, creativity, vitality and innovation.

The EU are the ones who claim that they care about diversity, cultural enrichment and children, now we see how deep this concern truly is in their handling of the internet.

Generation Z & Millennials will never forgive them – Thou Shall Not Laugh In Europe.

You can contact your EU representatives and find out who they are by a simple Google search or make a video if you are a YouTuber: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/uk_meps.html#shadowbox/1/

 

“The Reactionary Mind – Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump“ by Corey Robin.

“The men and women killed on September 11 were not citizens of a democracy; they were earners, and rewards would be distributed accordingly. Virtually no one-not even the commentators and politicians who denounced the Feinberg calculus for other reasons-criticised this aspect of his decision.” (p.218)

Thankfully I did not receive any new books for Christmas this year (2018) which is great, considering that I still haven’t read the ones I received last year. 

After all of my political outbursts and writings there could hardly be a better title to end my “Things To Read“ section with in 2018 than Corey Robin’s “The Reactionary Mind- Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump.“

I have a deep admiration for good writers displaying broad vocabulary usage, especially those who engage in extensive harvesting of information.

This is its own virtuosity for sure and I find it very impressive.

Characters like Robin would probably not be particularly gobsmacked by my own writings but see it as a source of opinions in a bundle of many.

That being said; Corey’s work is an analogue data-base of other people’s opinions presented to those of us who are not academics or to those who are hoping to climb that mountain.

He presents his collection of conservative thinkers brilliantly and convincingly argues his point.

It is particularly illuminating for someone like myself to read it; in fact I would go so far as to call it mandatory reading for anyone on the right spectrum of politics.

What really stood out to me and what I ended up highlighting in the book were sections regarding economics.

I was stunned to read quotes from Hobbes who would have greeted a 1984 super-state with open arms. His definition of free-will is something that I’ve come to consistently ridicule pointing out to my relatives when reading, talking or hearing about abusive behaviour: “well according to Hobbes this is free-will in action if you choose to be a victim!”

I was equally mortified by Edmund Burke’s view on labour but certainly saw in his writings the justification for wage-slavery in today’s modern world.

It is simply impossible for an individual to condemn chained-slavery in one sentence only to proclaim that one endorses freedom and liberty while endorsing Burke. There is no such thing.

Edmund Burke had no respect for the individual or humanity as quoted in Robin’s book. A terrifying individual whose theories should be held up as a horror-example of what one should fight against.

Likewise, I was angered when reading quotes from Ayn Rand who came across as a delusional fraud, the antichrist incarnate, without any concern for her fellow humans at all. Robin demonstrated this by comparing quotes from her with quotes from Hitler. They aligned perfectly.   

Thank God for Adam Smith who came across as the only sensible thinker in regards to labour.

View this post on Instagram

#adamsmith for the win! What #edmundburke is quoted as saying & defending in "The Reactionary Mind" is literally #slavery 😑 Not good. Here is a good quote from #Smith ❤️ "He describes that minimum as either a subsistence wage to procure the worker's survival or a family wage enabling not only to maintain and reproduce itself but also to advance itself. Not only must wages provide "the necessities and conveniences of life"; what constitutes those necessities and conveniences will depend upon the overall wealth of a society." 👍🏻 #economics #reading #ideas #politics #society #thereactionarymind #coreyrobin #trade #money #finance #labor #workers #wages #nations #peace

A post shared by The Commander In Chief (Berit) (@thecommanderinchief1) on

Obviously it all made me think about my own efforts in regards to my art and inspired me to initiate a new art-concept for this year (2019) named: “The Value of Labour.“ 

I will not go into great detail in describing this particular art-project until the end of the year.

“When labor becomes the norm, in both senses of the term, culture does not stand a chance.” (p.163)

I highlighted several quotes in the book that were of great interest, but I will not quote them all here since it dawned upon me during Christmas that I have a tendency to write rather large book-reviews and quote what I read to such an extent that it all becomes a bit too much.

Ultimately I want people to read the books that I mention but I also want to share information since we live in a time where people don’t seem to take reading seriously!

I have to say that it feels strange to read a book written in proper American. Rather than writing labour, the text goes for labor instead. The same can be said for the usage of the letter z or c vs. s. After having gotten used to the more French way of writing English words, it feels like I’m reading simplified English.

What I find troubling about “The Reactionary Mind“ is that Corey Robin is portraying Democrats and liberals as inherently peaceful and “lame” which couldn’t be further from the truth, he also fails in addressing current political movements such as: transgenderism, LGBTQ, 3rd wave feminism, racism, censorship and iconoclasm, and declarations of total war written by members of the political left, etc;

His criticism and portrayal of Trump also falls into the category of “Orange man bad,“ with the by now familiar name-calling. He adds to this by quoting “The Art Of The Deal,“ a book ghost written by Tony Schwartz.

It is difficult to find anything illuminating in regards to Trump’s character, barring the support of his children and friends of the family. After all of the negative articles that I’ve read (and openly ridiculed here on my blog) I’ve only come across three sources in regards to Trump’s personality that can be seen as plausible or informative. One is the video of Tony Schwartz in Oxford, another is the video interview with one of the women alleging that they had an affair, the other is a long article in The New Yorker written about his tv-show “The Apprentice.” What these three have in common is that they align and paint the sort of picture that would be credible considering Trump’s vast wealth and business accomplishments; all other critics are namely repeating the same words over and over without ever giving any reasons for why they are doing so…

That being said it is unlikely that anyone will care much for what Schwartz have to say for himself since Trump’s larger than life personality and star eclipses that of a journalist hired to write about another man’s accomplishments…

Trump’s magnitude is so immense that it is impossible to come across a media outlet not mentioning him (the publishing houses clearly see it as their mission to use any outlet to influence potential voters), impossible to come across anyone in the music industry who does not have an official opinion broadcasted on their social media (regardless of their size and influence), his very presence has driven his political adversaries to nothing but visible madness; it is not even possible to go to a random coffee-house in Cheltenham without overhearing the neighbouring table talk about Trump’s latest Tweets.

Such is his fame and such is his influence.  

He has made everyone reveal themselves and their true colours on an international scale.

Those who want: border security, a crack-down on gang-warfare, private guns, religion, jobs and a future for their families love the man and are his fans; those who hate him want: no borders, no jobs, no police, no private guns, no religion, and no children.

Yet those who oppose him do not really see this since all they chant is: “Orange man bad,“ they are fighting an unjust system presided over by a bigot – in their opinion.

His most devout fans burnt their Nike gear to show their contempt for “flag-disrespecter“ Colin Kaepernick. Meanwhile the political activism on the left increasingly resembles persecution with doxing and physical assaults a staple; it brings to mind “give us the man and we’ll find the crime.“

A most celebrated and respected investigative journalist referred to the spectacle by saying: “this is political war.“

It is also worth noting that liberals were terrified of a potential “military junta“ in the White House when Trump appointed retired Generals to certain positions. Once these characters were fired one by one, the very same people voiced their complaints, since they apparently wanted a military take-over if this take-over would stand opposed (even if just a little bit) to President Trump.

“… or, as the Kagans would later put it, “to intervene decisively in every critical region” of the world, “whether or not a visible threat exists there.” (p.213)

“… to ensure that no other power ever arose to challenge the United States and that no regional powers ever attained preeminence in their local theatres.” (p.214)

To conclude; 

There is a real danger of “state-worship“ both on the right and left side of politics. This is never in the interest of the people when contemplating the exploitative nature of the modern “state.“ There is also a danger of denial when people are clueless of past tensions between those who yearn for change and those who oppose this.

Right-wing people do have a tendency to greatly admire enforcement professions only to despise big-government and bureaucracy in the next sentence. I guess it is an admiration for being badass and for being patriotic. I certainly consider myself a fan of the military and others who keep us safe and know how to kick ass!

Ironically enough these enforcement professionals are in our times acting as agents of the very state that conservatives either loathe and/or doubt.

Those on the left side of politics meanwhile bemoans war-mongering from the right, while frequently calling for military interventions in the name of “saving humanity“ or “standing in solidarity“ with whomever. They greatly expand the state “for the greater good“ while simultaneously lamenting “power-abuse,“ “the patriarchy,“ and “hierarchies.“

It is immensely ironic that left-wing characters erect the very abuse time and time again that they criticise or see (whether legitimate or not) in already existing political structures. They do have a tendency of being very right in their analysis of what doesn’t work while failing spectacularly when enacting their remedy. Usually resulting in monumental losses in the millions. 

The use of language and grammar is an abuse of power in the mind of a true deconstructionist, yet the ideological children of these radical thinkers are the very ones who are forcing everyone in public academic settings to announce their pronouns and talk like fools.

On the other hand; conservatives regularly re-write and update their own history so that they will not be seen in an unflattering light by whatever modern standards. If you believed in maintaining the established order of your time and you lived in the American South, you would obviously have been pro-slavery, if you believed in maintaining the existing orders in Europe, you would obviously have been pro-Monarchy. If you believed in the captains of industry and this newly established elite you would have supported the suppression of workers, and so and so on.

Establishments and elites change.

I disagree with Corey Robin’s argument that violence is one of the pillars of the conservative mindset and would rather counter-argue that violence is at the heart of humanity as a whole.

Geneticists would obviously know more about the topic.

I take it as self-evident that most lust for power and that few would ever be able to resist the temptation of greatly expanding their spheres of influence if given the chance.

Inevitably this results in the infringement upon other people’s borders and rights to self-rule.

A right is only a right as long as humans decide to respect it, just like a law or a system is only operational as long as people decide to play along with it. The moment that people do not, it will simply cease to exist.

Political orders are living organisms which makes it ironic to be a conservative, unless ones definition of conservative aligns with mine; namely that conservatism means conserving any traces and tools of ones cultural heritage such as: texts, buildings, artefacts, music, practises, languages, etc; in addition to the protection of ones own population group from existential enemies both internal and external.

It would also make sense to include borders but this would not take into consideration our ancestors nomadic tendencies, which led them to move wherever they could find resources. Which grounds to be defended would be defined by the actual value to the tribe. This obviously includes farmland in these “modern“ times of ours.

Expansion due to necessity would also have to be included if concerned with the survival of ones population group, since mass evacuations are sometimes a necessity. You have to be flexible and willing to re-locate if your current territory becomes inhabitable.

Borders follow the tribe.

Traditionalism on the other hand does in my opinion mean that you consciously re-enact past patterns of behaviour, which is something that a great deal of conservatives would not be interested in doing.

In this day and age conservatism is largely seen as a financial model which means that nothing is ever really seen as worth “conserving“ if it gets in the way of the sanctity of “the free market,“ socially there may be a little sprinkle of religion, but this is largely absent from the Nations of Europe.

Lately I’ve been thinking that globalism must appeal to those who see all humans as replaceable cogs in the industrial like state system. If 10 Swedes die tomorrow it makes no difference since 10 Nigerians can be imported to take their place. It is however interesting to note that the argument is never really reversed because then it becomes imperialistic and racist. Overpopulation in Africa can be solved by Europeans not having any kids, in the eyes of a globalist it makes no difference at all if China all of a sudden is swapped demographically with India. We are all just cogs in the machine. This is the only way I can think of to explain their thinking.

It is worth noting however that if celestial beings create humans to worship them you cannot simply exchange them for other creatures while expecting a continuation of praise. This will probably come as a rude awakening to many in the years to come.

When reading this book it is informative to see that conservative critics do have a tendency historically to lament the inertia of the establishment while both fearing and admiring the vitality of revolutionaries.

Like biblical prophets they warn of a looming danger, but a danger nonetheless that seems inevitable.

“What is important is not what freedom I personally would like to exercise but what freedom some person may need in order to do things beneficial to society; this freedom we can assure to the unknown person only by giving it to all.” Hayek (p.159)

 

When You Lose Your Headquarter While Fighting A Conventional Enemy….

Lately I’ve been thinking about the political establishment’s fixation on Russia and China. My reason for this is that I imagine that it must be reassuring and good to know that your Nation is in relatively good shape if you are called to fight a foreign State actor elsewhere…

What inspired these thoughts was a short YouTube video I watched from Paul Joseph-Watson where he spoke about the fall of Paris. This was before the yellow-West protests.

There seem to be no willingness to sort out internal turbulence from a great number of political establishments in Europe, who seem more concerned with distracting their enforcement officials with petty, feel-good, political-correctness issues, rather than nipping things in the bud. In addition the mainstream media are in on the hoax as well veiling Europe in a false wrapping of safety where critics are portrayed as merely ill-informed, or as Russian spies, or as racists, or as weird conspiracy theorists.

As it is though, the con-act is unravelling since the instability has grown to such an extent that the de-stabilisation effort can no longer be hidden.

Leaders such as Kurz and Salvini are lone voices of reason displaying the sort of leadership that is necessary in a situation such as this; the only issue is that their actions are contained and would have been more powerful and efficient if they were executed upon the continent as a whole.

The reason as to why I bring up this issue once again is that if the threat and the concerns regarding China and Russia are as severe as Defence officials would want to us to believe, then I dare say that it must be quite “problematic” that we already find ourselves in compromised territorial situations within our own Nation States…

In the case of conventional, State actor-warfare, it could very well might be that our professional fighters are sent out to confront a traditional enemy, while their home territory (that has already been compromised) fall to imported and/or native insurgents; the insurgents might even strike a deal with the more conventional enemies so that our own fighters find themselves locked-in and surrounded.

It will require quite the genius to first defeat the Chinese and the Russians, only to head back home to another battlefield. In fact it very well might be that there will be no home to come back to at all.

Not to mention that the main battle could easily be sabotaged if your headquarter falls.

This means that regardless of how one chooses to think and regardless of what might be on top of one’s priority list, the destabilisation of Europe and of America cannot be brushed under the carpet any longer.

It is a bi-partisan issue that transcends all and everything. It simply has to deal with the survival of our tribes and cultures.

The fact that we have to wait in anticipation to see whether elections grant us the leadership required to tackle our current continental crisis is nothing but tragic.

If a continental decision could be made it would be in everyone’s interest, after all it must compromise NATO’s efficiency and operational ability that so many of its member Nations finds themselves in such an unfortunate internal predicament.

And if it doesn’t compromise the preparations that these countries are currently undertaking in preparation for any potential future conventional war efforts, then it probably will once the fighting starts.

If you have no control now, then what makes you think that you will under such circumstances as described above; especially since our militaries are professional, which means that “life-will-go-on-as-usual” for the vast majority of the population, who at this point in time stand face to face with threats that our current enforcement establishments have either no desire to solve or even worse: no ability to solve.

In other words; even if your main concerns are Russia and China it cannot be ignored that the current political situation in the U.S.A. & Europe poses a fundamental threat to any future victories.

You will need your country to be there for you so that you can fight for your country; yet what makes you think that it will if you gaze upon the current internal landscape?

 

The Heated Topic Of Immigration Wordlwide & What Sovereignty Actually Means.

There is a proposal on the table that apparently will be voted on and discussed later this month, concerning making it illegal to be a critic of mass-migration, and I guess its effects, which are notable (historically speaking). This is to be done in order to initialize and/or continue with mass migration into Europe without any criticism. I wonder if this makes it illegal to review and talk about History books and/or whether or not it will also make it illegal to write that Norway was converted by the sword, which was the case, only that it was the sword of Christianity. History gives us the key to who we are and what sort of challenges we might face as nations/individuals and how to tackle these …  Here is the video:

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/criticism-of-immigration-will-be-banned-in-europe/

Ok … now over to what I was actually going to write about:

I was quite surprised when I read an article a while back about anti-immigration riots in South Africa. It was of interest since it depicted Africans demonstrating against other Africans entering into their territory. I linked to the article here on my site and here I’ve found a video about anti-immigration sentiments in Israel.

Once again it illustrates how we all tackle a lot of the same issues regardless of where we live. With our current technology it makes it increasingly easier to compare cultures and how different population groups react to the same challenges.

What is of particular interest in the video is how the two Israeli women start shouting at one another since they disagree about whether or not they should take in the migrants.

Attitudes and behaviours that Westerners seem to regard as outdated are well and alive in other parts of the world, which you quickly realise when reading about the persecution of Christians.

Enforcing certain values and a clear identity will not happened quietly as anything that falls on the outside of the spectrum has to be removed or silenced. This paints a brutal picture that feels foreign in today’s “liberated” Western world of “Thou What Thou Wilt.” It makes sense to say that “when you go to Rome you do as the Romans” and unless you do have an unhealthy fixation on, let’s say, Islam; it makes sense to say that if you live in a Muslim majority country, then once again “you do as the Romans.”

You are a guest; which is why you’ll have to pay your respects or re-locate.

When observing how “respecting other’s sovereignty” plays out in practise though it actually means that you quietly stand by as genuine minorities (such as LGBTQ characters in Russia) are treated poorly, while political dissenters are sent into camps  (China), while it also means silently supporting terrifying human-rights violations (Saudi Arabia) all in the name of respecting “sovereignty” and a claim to practise ones “identity.”

Even in Western societies that are officially trying to be “bring-your-own-beer-countries”; they do want to enforce something, which is a normless society. This means that if you actually do stand for what has traditionally been the identity of your territory, well then you must be a bad-guy. Having “no-identity” becomes the identity, in this strange, awkward case. There is no culture, there is no heritage, there is no history, there is no nothing. Only a territory that you define upon your arrival. 

Even though I’ve been writing about how important it is to respect a Nations sovereignty and identity, I have to admit that in this I’ve failed on a small-scale by sending words of comfort out to persecuted Christians who in some cases are breaking the rules of the territory that they find themselves in by possessing a Bible and/or being open about their beliefs.

I’m also failing at “bringing my own beer” into identity-less Western territories as I’ve always integrated. This though becomes an issue if you live in a territory where “a deconstruction” is taking place. It means that you are aligned with the old (what the territory used to be) rather than the new (what the territory is becoming).

This might then oddly enough transform you into a dissenter by you successfully integrating into an established identity that is being killed on purpose by whatever establishment…..

Another example of sovereignty violation is this: if environmental pollutants are to be fought against effectively it also means being “rude,” since boots on the ground will be necessary in Africa and Asia to crack down on the worst “climate-offenders;” so there goes your peace and respect for sovereignty!

I wonder sometimes if  outspoken celebrities and spokespeople truly understand the natural conclusion of what they are stating and supporting….If you are an actual eco-warrior, well then you can’t respect anyone’s Sovereignty!

Pollution is really and truly a global problem, and we in the West are not the worst offenders.

I’m mentioning this to showcase how difficult  it can be to have certain stated principles, only to realise that things might not be as easy as previously thought…

It might also be worth mentioning that global corporations can in some ways operate like “one world governments” for the simple reason that they are their own thing completely and are everywhere, regardless of Nation or Continent.

Their influence is greater than anything else I’m sure.

National Sovereignty is consistently disrespected by world leaders who initiate sanctions and/or declare war against the leadership of other Nations, who they deem unfit to rule. Hence, no respect for sovereignty, nor the enforcement of National Identity.

The reason for this is probably due to how painful it actually is to witness Nation-State enforcement of territorial identity and also (in most cases I’m guessing) how unprofitable it is if Nation States break away from unions where so-and-so is/are the decision maker/s and/or big player/s.

Back to the migration issue; people are protective of their environment because they don’t want to lose out on their resources, which is one of the reasons as to why people have trough the ages “fortified their positions.” Something that is illegal in today’s Western Europe, unless you are a member of the establishment…..

Previous enforcement of ones right to be in a territory is also why we have distinct population groups, because group such and such was not erased by being absorbed into someone else’s “thing.” Hence in order to have a Nation and secure the continuation of said Nation you actually have to exclude, which a lot of people instinctively do; but this is never going to look pretty, especially not on a large-scale, which is what I’m talking about in this entry.

This of course makes an “open world” scary since it is a dangerous illusion; nobody is really interested in being squeezed out, not even those who are initially “open and inclusive,” when all of a sudden they wake up to find out that they have become a minority and that their claim to whatever territory and influence is null and void.

Their definition of their territory that they once upon a time wanted to generously share with others, have slipped and doesn’t include them any more. They simply lost it.

(It might be an idea to note that citizenship also becomes bizarre in “an open world” since citizenship is merely a piece of paper in this case. You territory belongs to everyone, and anyone can be of your territory. The same can be said of legislation tackling digital abuse and scams online. What you get is digital-global-anarchy since a criminal operation from one Nation abusing the member of another cannot really be prosecuted. Which governing body is supposed to police human interactions over the global internet?)

There are those who clearly do not see the arrivals of large hordes of other population groups as problematic. This is precisely why the arguing becomes so ugly, because those who end up being exposed to these transformations have a tendency of being very loud and extremely upset when their home-areas change suddenly. Especially if trust breaks down and inter-racial and/or inter-ethnic violence (the targeting of those who are not part of your in-group) becomes a thing.

The same can be noted now with anti-immigration sentiments here on the continent, that would appear to be reserved for Africans and Arabs primarily, but are also extended to other European Nationalities as well, in addition to heated arguments between individuals who look just the same (due to being members of the same Nation), because of disagreements over whether or not EurAbia or EurAfrica ought to be forcefully created, regardless of the human cost in the process.

I think it can be argued with certainty that trying to unite Europeans was a challenge great enough, just like trying to unite Africa is a monumental challenge due to inter-Racial diversity.

Now it can be witnessed that it is all falling apart here in “Europe,” since it was simply “too much, too quickly, too soon.” Rather than admitting that this has all been a spectacular political failure (unless you want chaos) the political establishment in Brussels appear hellbent on forcing their vision on everyone else, regardless of whether or not people actually want this in great numbers…

Things are already getting ugly since the survival of one “ideological vision” in this case, means the destruction of the other.

The good news is: that this is how humans behave, regardless of where they might be….

Here is one case of internal dissent in Germany and a proposed solution by a French academic:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811101069694506-german-military-plot-spoiled/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/01/the-german-military-has-a-neo-nazi-problem-extremism-right-wing-terrorism/

http://freewestmedia.com/2017/11/18/french-academic-proposes-muslim-apartheid-state-in-france/

Censorship, Freedom & Sovereignty In “Europe.”

All of a sudden, out of nowhere, like a lightening bolt out of the blue, I couldn’t read certain news sites anymore since they had been “blocked by the EU.”

This literally happened over-night.

I took some screenshots of it, since I was planning to write about how the European territory is becoming increasingly like some “Soviet-spin-off.”

living in the EU

It is an interesting thing to experience since nobody really refers to themselves as “European” nor do anyone refer to their own territory as part of “Europe.”

“This is the U.K., Europe equals everyone else.”

“This is Scandinavia, Europe (again) equals everyone else.”

Yet the E.U. has the power to decide what ought to be accessed and read by everyone who lives under their jurisdiction, which certainly raises the question of national sovereignty….

It is also of interest since we learn about the Soviet Union in school and how horrible it was that “people were spied on,” that there was “limited freedom of speech,” that “information was being controlled,” etc;

In our “Western territories” we have “freedom of speech” as one of our “golden values,” which is of interest when considering that there are other territories on this planet who have no freedom of speech at all officially, which sounds horrid, but at least give people clearer guide-lines. Maybe “freedom of speech” is an illusion to crack down on dissenters? It can certainly be used that way I’m sure … you think you have freedom of speech, but oooops, apparently you do not.

In the same spirit I was going to write about the social media site GAB, that was all of a sudden shut down and mysteriously removed. Just like the E.U. censorship, that too happened remarkably quickly. The reason given was that the Synagogue-shooter over in the U.S.A. had a profile on their site. For some strange unexplainable reason though, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube still stand, despite being linked to Islamic terrorists, drug cartels, ethnic cleansing and major data leaks. The list of extremist (and unethical) behaviour goes on, which naturally will make one wonder: what sort of extremism is considered less extreme or more acceptable than others? A good question indeed….

GAB 1

I myself, have been trying to watch some of Donald J. Trump’s rally speeches via YouTube, but whenever I’ve tried to check out what he is actually doing and saying at his events, “the spinning wheel of doom” appears out of nowhere and I’m literally prevented from watching. If I manage to stream a speech, it doesn’t take long before everything “hangs” which means that I have to refresh my window indefinitely, since the problem doesn’t go away … mysteriously enough….

Yesterday I finally managed to watch my first rally, courtesy of my mother.

The energy level and the optimism could be felt all the way from America. It was a patriotic, enthusiastic speech that energised the huge crowd present.

There was nothing divisive, nothing hateful, nothing loathsome.

Since I’ve lived in the U.S. on several occasions I’ve seen for myself the derelict state of their country, it makes me happy to see that there is an effort in place to get America back on its feet. We need the same drive and optimism over here in “Europe” for sure; a country that looses faith in itself is a country that will cease to exist.

CENSORSHIP EU