If you’ve been following my blog for a while you’ve witnessed me going through a number of journeys. A music journey, a personal journey, a political journey, a spiritual journey, and so on. I’ve covered important books, funny conspiracy theories, biased news, and a whole range of other topics. I’ve shared stories from my own life, my thoughts and predictions, memes, you name it.
For quite a while I’ve been contemplating my own definition or my own take on what it means to actually be a conservative.
First of all: what does the word conservative mean?
According to a quick Goggle search it means the following:
- averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
- (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.
The first definition makes it sound like creativity and conservatism are incompatible, that you would somehow burn your phone and declare war on silicon valley, moving into a cave somewhere. The second one is also of interest. What if I decided to barter? Would bartering exclude me from being a conservative? Or what about non-governmental voluntary redistribution of wealth on a small limited scale? Would that also exclude me from the conservative label?
If people were to ask me about conservatism what springs into my mind are these things in the following order:
- Heritage: population groups, family trees, buildings, artworks, stories, history, languages, museums, music, flags, food, etc;
- The environment: plastic, emballage, air pollution, food pollution, water pollution, deforestation, extinction, honey bees, etc;
- God: a proper religious alignment and a realisation that humans are not at the centre of the universe in terms of importance. We are not God, we are bellow God striving to be better. This could in theory be lumped into the first category, but that wouldn’t ring true for Scandinavian Christians, South American Muslims, or African Jews. If you acknowledge the world of spirit and choose to live your life in accordance with such things (regardless of religion or spiritual tradition) it is a major deviance from “secularism” or “atheism” where you would deny the existence of the other worldly (in most cases). You would probably deem it irrational due to lack of tangible evidence and credit any religious feelings to “severe superstitions.” Any stories of supernatural phenomenons would be dismissed as manifestations of mental disorders or sensationalism in order to attract attention. Those who hate religion hate it with feverous passion and would probably be very happy to stomp it out permanently.
To me this list makes sense because it all boils down to the act of conservation. You don’t want your natural habitat to be destroyed, nor do you want the cultural markers of your group to be eviscerated. You acknowledge the world of spirit, following in the footsteps of countless ancestors, rather than declaring yourself (or any other human) for God.
I think a great number of people would disagree however with my list since declaring oneself a conservative seems to mean that your core value is money worship in this day and age. I however disagree with this notion.
If you are a Christian, for example, you must be well-aware of how money-worship is not supposed to be the focal point of your existence. Sharing equally with your brothers and sisters in Christ is an overarching theme….
In terms of freedom, a much cherished value on the conservative side, I have this to say:
You genuinely owning your own property makes you empowered. If you don’t want your house to be confiscated by the bank or the government, you would not only have to own your own land, but you would also need the ability to defend your land.
You owning the means of production would also make you empowered in terms of your own business. Under all other circumstances you are not.
Leading a sustainable lifestyle would also empower you. Owning your own farm, being energy independent, owning your own water, would put you on top of your own pyramid. No water bills to pay, no electricity bills to pay, no antibiotics or poisonous chemicals in your steak, etc;
The issue is exploitation and insatiable greed. It is currently impossible to not be somehow complicit in the global abuse of labour. Everyone has to make money somehow, the question is whether you will build someone else’s dream or your own.
If you choose to construct something for yourself you’ll have to have quite a start capital in order to be truly “in control.” In most cases you won’t, which means that you’ll depend on infrastructure controlled by others. Even if you were to be perfectly empowered, monopolies could potentially squeeze you out of business in the long run. When huge companies create a habit in people where they get used to franchise merchandise costing close to nothing, it will force other lesser known “brands” to lower their prices due to the expectations that have been implanted into the heads of consumers.
This in turn fuels “wage slavery” and “sweat shops” regardless of whether or not the merchandise features the face of an outspoken celebrity vehemently opposed to such activities. Unless you control the means of production, you control nothing.
Consumers in turn might think that they have a million options when all of the different roads are essentially controlled by the exact same people. I guess the key is to create the illusion of diversity, with few corporations gaining massively on people’s innate tribalism: like record labels.
“Hip Hop stinks” or “my artist is 10X better than your artist” are manifestations of tribalism regardless of whether or not it all comes down the same conveyor belt.
Those who are smart would make a profit of those on the left and those on the right, arm tribe A and tribe B, offer high-end products to the wealthy while simultaneously selling low-end products to the poor.
Most wouldn’t be able to do this however, so trying to empower oneself on a small-scale is in most cases a challenge great enough.
If you choose to grow your own produce you are indeed empowering yourself in addition to helping the planet. Not only will you get vegetables free from poisonous pesticides, they will also be plastic-free, transport-free, more nutritious, tastier and cheaper. Ironically enough you’ll not be growing the economy if you end up being self-sufficient in terms of your greens.
Likewise if you were to ask a relative to help you with something it would amount to an exchange of favours, hopefully beneficial to both parties. Much of “running-a-family” falls into the category of bartering. One member will handle one task, another member another task, and so on and so on, depending on how big the household is. This will also fail to grow the economy since you are not hiring outside help.
It will be cheaper for you to keep things inside the family, but in terms of “the economy” it would be much better if every single interaction you had throughout your life was based on nothing but financial transactions. The ultimate extreme-capitalist Utopia would be one where there was a charge for everything and no human relations came free of charge.
This sounds cold and “inhuman.” Another variation of extreme-capitalist Utopia could be one where no workers are needed and the working class is permanently removed. No one will probably write or say these type of things in the mainstream media for the simple reason that if thousands or millions of people figured out that their replacement and eventual removal was the end-game of technological automation there is a danger that they might attempt to “kill the machine” right now. There is no justification for keeping excessive hordes of people around on a planet with limited resources but for now you are not supposed to dwell on that fact. What if you were to rebel?
It is virtually impossible to not spend money or cost money if you are simply alive.
Let’s say that you were to spend your entire day in your house. Bedridden.
This uninspiring activity would still cost you.
Going to the toilet is not free.
Drinking out of the tap: not free.
Flushing the toilet: not free.
Keeping food in your fridge, even if you choose not to eat anything: not free.
A cup of tea: not free.
Turning on the light: not free.
Charging your phone: not free.
Wifi: not free.
Even laying in a house half-dead isn’t free since you’ll be charged for the luxury of having a roof over your head in one way or another. Even if you are co-living with others there might be other expenses or activities that you are contributing to. So no, dying a slow death in your bed will still cost you and in most cases if you don’t pay up you’ll be kicked out of your bed. So is the bed ever really yours? Probably not.
None of this sounds like freedom because none of it is.
If anything it sounds like a great pitch for family values, because if everything costs and freedom is unobtainable you can at least share the burden and the struggle with your own tribe. This would probably make everyone’s life way better than everyone being atomised and on their own. In theory it would enhance your tribe’s survival chances since these are greatly reduced if you are one lone person.
If you collect rainwater and have access to your own water well you will be empowered.
If you somehow create your own plumbing and sewage system, you will be in charge.
If you can create your own energy, you will not be subservient.
If you can produce some or all of your own food you will be your own master.
If obtaining freedom is of importance to you it will be imperative to become independent from both private businesses and government institutions.
Only then will you be free to sit in your own house without anyone billing you regardless of your own productivity.
Only then will you be free…
….but you will still not be free from God.
Fighting for liberty and justice is an ongoing eternal issue that could easily become a full-time occupation without any major gains.
I think I’ve compared “deconstructionist” efforts in the past to Samara, the girl from The Ring franchise. I think I’ll elaborate on that by saying that she could symbolise the force of anti-human totalitarianism instead. It is a bad idea to pin this exclusively on a political movement (or a political party) since it is in many ways like a force of nature, a negative one, the dark to the light.
There will always be warning signs before a crazed lone-gunman unleashes his untamed fury upon an unsuspecting group of innocents and likewise there will always be warning signs before societal collapses.
When the EU reaches its ultimate form and they finally have the power to control their “subjects” exactly how they want under their jurisdiction it will already be too late and many will then wonder why they weren’t warned…….
The advocacy against Article 13 & Article 11 failed, and this could be since campaigning was way too fragmented and due to the message not being relatable enough.
There has been a lot of focus on how damaging the Copyright Directive could be for creators but the majority of the populace are obviously not YouTubers. Among those who are YouTube creators there will always be those who are professional and who know the ins and outs of intellectual rights due to being copyright owners themselves, but the majority might be largely ignorant due to lack of management/representation and lack of general awareness.
Many threw themselves on the YouTube cover trend since this gave people subscribers and views very quickly. I myself often wondered how on earth there could be such a great demand or interest watching the one cover after the other of the exact same song. Don’t ask me why there is such a demand for this … but the bottom line is that there is and that most successful YouTube channels have grown not due to original creativity but due to performances of already established works. This might come to a total end with the signing of the EU Copyright Directive which happened today (or yesterday depending on your time-zone).
I threw myself on the Article 13 & article 11 #saveyourinternet campaign since I’m alarmed at the multiple warning signs coming out of the EU displaying their total disdain for the general population and the totalitarianism that they are clearly aiming for when it comes to what sort of future they are building.
This is not a future that respects or take into account the internal European cultural and ethnic diversity that we have here already, nor does it seek to protect and communicate historical accuracies, nor does it seek to make information spread easily, since there is obviously a desire to meticulously micro-manage whatever narratives that are allowed to float around on the internet.
Witness accounts regarding targeted violence towards ethnic Europeans have routinely been hushed down (in some EU territories this has been more severe than other places), since there is only a yearning for carefully constructed propaganda in addition to increased surveillance. This in spite of Angela Merkel herself admitting to all of the internal issues in Germany over failed integration of migrants, before she then decided to do a total political turn and open up the whole continent to anyone who wants to come. A fun fact is that there is currently a lot of heat between the USA and Germany since the Germans have declared that the cost of immigration is such that they cannot commit to NATO expenses….
Assuming that a one-size-fits-all mentality could function for the entire European continent with all of its innate diversity sounds mad. You cannot even move around in this territory without knowing multiple languages. People are very tribal and not knowing how to communicate locally will get you a lot of static, in fact it will be impossible for you to function. You have to speak many languages if moving around within Europe, this is not optional, it is a must!
When it comes to increased steps taken to monopolise “speech” and “story-lines” I ask this:
- Does this sounds like what we learned in school about East-Germany and The Soviet Union?
This is where we are heading in full force ourselves, yet people will not care too much about it yet since “it doesn’t affect them.”
Any person regardless of gender, race, orientation, beliefs, background, whatever, can be a YouTube creator, it could be anyone, yet the mistake that was made by many was that they did not mention the bigger or fuller picture:
- Several news articles cannot be accessed from EU territories, including the UK, since the UK is merely a province of the EU and has no sovereignty or power of its own.
- In addition to this there is also the desire to make it illegal for Europeans to talk about immigration, regardless of the historical implications of mass population movements and regardless of the fact that inter-European tribal movements define us.
- Nobody really reports on the staggering increase in vandalism towards Christian churches in France. Anti-Semitism is also on the rise, but according to an article I read not that long ago anti-Christian hate-crimes amount to over a 1000 incidents over a year, with anti-Jewish crimes passing the 500 mark, anti-Muslim crimes in comparison was at a 100 incidents. The question of course remains why this isn’t part of the mainstream news picture?
Simply trying to rally people around their favourite entertainment platform wasn’t enough, but I’m sure that more and more warning signs will come out of the EU and at one point or the other there might be enough people who are directly affected by the changes for it to make a difference….
I’m currently reading about The Russian Revolution and what strikes me as fascinating is the fact that there were several minor revolutions before the big popular one. Prolonged mass-mobilisation was a bit of an issue since demographics dropped off once their particular group received whatever compensation that they wanted.
When their specific group was being looked after it was all good!
There is no reason to believe that Europeans will react any differently.
“For as long as I’m fine I’ll be quiet!”
Imagine a future where you are only allowed to blog or post content online if you have a permit or a license obtained after extensive political screening by some official department. You might be laughing today….but for how long?
This is a very interesting read! The key to our present and future is in the past! I highly recommend checking out this article and the topic addressed!
There’s a new paper out in Science – ” The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years” . It discusses genetic change over time, from hunter-gatherer days, the arrival of the Anatolian-ancestry farmers, and the coming of the Indo-Europeans.
The chart above shows what happened when the Indo-Europeans show up. Autosomal steppe ancestry goes from zero to ~40%, but on the Y-chromosome, it goes from zero to 100% over a few hundred years. As quoted in the New York Times, archaeologists ruled out violence as a possible cause. [ ” I cannot say what it is,”said Roberto Risch, an archaeologist from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who was not involved in the new studies/ But he ruled out wars or massacres as the cause. “It’s not a particularly violent time,”, he said.
Instead, Dr. Risch suspects “a political process” is the explanation. ]
View original post 102 more words
Please don’t forget about Article 13! Watch the video at the end of this entry!!!
Lately I’ve been mentally drafting an entry about citizenship in an open world. There are so many contradicting laws that makes no sense especially in combination with facilitated mass movements of people. It is indeed a very interesting topic for many reasons:
- Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
- Assuming that immigration laws make sense is naive since a number of measures are carried out in an attempt to create an image of governmental efficiency.
- Assuming that a territory will be more welcoming towards geographical neighbours also fly in the face of incredibly generous offers directed towards non-bordering territories. A territory might be legally more hostile towards people next door.
Just when I had all of this in the back of my mind I came across The Windrush Scandal that perfectly illustrates my point:
- You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
- You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
- All of a sudden you find that your status has been revoked several years even decades after you were welcomed into the territory and that you are all of a sudden being treated as an illegal immigrant.
- The digital revolution has wrecked havoc on the old system of file-keeping. So if you were born before 2000 you might struggle to get hold of school records and other “evidence,” because you were born before mainstream digitalisation. When I was little my name was just added in my parent’s passports, you had to have your own passport once you were a teen or something along those lines, so government bureaucracy and technological changes can easily land you in a grey area.
Did anyone say an open world? Think again. This is a topic worthy of a giga entry because the issue puts into question a myriad of things that we just assume in today’s digitally and commercially open world.
- Just because a piece of paper grants you legal access doesn’t mean that you and your family will actually be safe – because there will always be many layers of “borders” – and if locals are pissed off and unhappy they might create their own border-control “service,” which you probably do not want to deal with, ever.
- An authority might change its mind about you or the ethnic demographic that you belong to regardless of whether or not you actually represent a threat as an individual or as part of a generalised group. You might just end up being targeted so that the government can look busy.
If the Windrush scandal illustrated anything it is how dangerous the illusion of an open world actually is. You might be safe in terms of residency for 40 years only to wake up one day to find out that you’ve been labeled an “illegal immigrant” and that you are on your way to a detention facility.
Here are some petitions to share about a more peaceful issue: the environment.
Today it is the 8th of March and the whole world, including businesses, seem united in this socialist/communist celebration.
In my 1st blog entry about the 8th of March in 2015 I did the politically correct thing and featured 20 Badass Women from stereo-typically male dominated fields.
Once again I would like to remind my readership (and the world) that Russia was ahead in all things egalitarian. So there is nothing new with policies currently promoted in Western countries, in fact I highly recommend reading: The War Has No Female Face., a book about female Russian war heroes.
This year I will say thank you to mothers and women who are good at keeping our societies going; those who have gone down in history nameless in terms of the history books but whose memories were/are kept alive by their descendants.
Music wise I think that I’m a good role-model professionally for women who want to choose an untraditional career path, more than anything I think that I’m a good role-model for musicians regardless of gender, since a number of the pieces that I’ve recorded and performed had never been recorded by men nor women. The same can be said of my creative versatility, this is not a common thing to come across, whether you are a man or a woman or somewhere in between.
I hardly have any female fans and that has always been the case! I’ve received countless messages through the years from men telling me that I’ve inspired them to practise their instruments! So my influence is not over women.
The assumption that women will have female fans or that women will make other women purchase instruments is very wrong, or at least it is in my case.
So today I will use my blog to thank grandmothers, mothers, etc; who always worked in the fields, on the farms, in the house, in the home, those who were never thanked and are never thanked even today!
A great deal of “awesome female role-models” have no children in our societies which becomes a national crisis if it is too widespread! A great deal of propaganda material is currently being promoted seeking to discourage Western people from having families.
Infertility though is a major catalyst for depression in women who feel less womanly if they can’t give birth to a child. It is regarded as one of the worst news that a woman can get which is why adoption is seen as a Godsend and a blessing to those who can’t have children.
I woke up this morning to a news story about a woman’s group here in the UK promoting having no babies in order to save the planet, the article also mentioned a group of French people who have voluntarily sterilised themselves in order to be eco-friendly.
As I’ve already mentioned on my blog before: there has been numerous mass extinctions on this planet! Climate change is an ongoing factor, with or without man-made pollution. Trash and deforestation can in many ways be seen as the result of one species gaining too much ground, which the planet has a tendency of cleaning up on its own, regardless of what we want as humans.
An eco-apocalypse will probably happen at one point or the other, but there will probably also be some people who survive! My bet is that Scandinavian rangers, African bush-men and mountain people in Afghanistan will be among those who will inherit the earth. Our modern culture of consumption and tech-convenience is a lure that will result in the death of millions of people incapable of surviving without the crutches of a developed Nation-State.
Self-sterilising eco-friendly Westerners are completely missing the point and are yet another example of how our part of the world is mentally and culturally decaying.
Happy International Women’s Day.
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.