Mental Mobility vs. Stagnancy.

“Flip-Flopper” is a good card to have on your hand if you want to convince the masses that your opponent is the opposite of trustworthy!

“You can’t trust __________ look at how he/she/it has changed position frequently on this-and-this issue.”

Who would you rather trust though? Someone who changes their mind when presented with new information or someone who doesn’t bulge regardless of the information that they are handed?

The reason as to why I started thinking about this is that the book that I’m currently reading….

IMG_0792

….has really started to pick up.

In it is said that those who gain insights and change the world are often very open when it comes to new information and input while those who also work to solve the same problems but don’t experience the breakthroughs are more solidified in terms of their viewpoints.

It is a display of “pride before the fall” but it is nonetheless interesting when drawing a parallel to politics.

Being ideologically consistent is regularly being portrayed as a virtue, when mental flexibility and fluidity seems to be the most important mindset to posses if one seeks to come up with new ideas.

Whether it is the military, the world of business or the act of governance it is dangerous to grow stagnant. It means the end of innovation. You become a slow-moving Mammoth rather than a quick-moving Cheetah.

When reading the book I automatically draw parallels to the music industry; I’ve found the chapter about big organisations very illuminating since it explains the general fixation on: covers, numbers (regardless of content value), re-makes, prequels and sequels.

Vanity numbers was the first thing that show biz people threw themselves on when it came to social media rather than actual engagements. What I liked so much about my own numbers (which was all broken down to me by my manager), was that the percentage of engagements and interactions were high when compared to other bands and artists.

This is what social-media influencers are going on about and what brands have finally picked up on.

This is why influencers don’t recommend paying for clicks and followers since what you are looking for are interactions and genuine influence.

I’m an influencer since people have always bought the type of instruments that I play, and I’ve received messages lately from people claiming that they’ve made lifestyle changes inspired by how I live my life.

It warms my heart that I can potentially help people! That was not something that I foresaw when I started blogging!

Yet if people focus on my reduced reach on Facebook or don’t notice that comments are now being screened by Facebook (meaning that you cannot automatically see all of the comments people are posting), they might get the false impression that people have lost interest. This is how the social media giants can potentially sabotage your business and create false impressions. Regardless of this I’m still selling records while I’ve unintentionally upped my role as an influencer and artist since I’m now a  potentially life-changing influencer due to my openness about my faith, what I read, my prepping project, etc;

Why have I ended up sharing so much? By observing changes in trends, keeping an eye on demands and requests and changing accordingly.

If you move like a Mammoth this will be hard, which reminds me of Elisabeth (my manager) more than anything who instantly understood the importance of social media while I regarded it as lame and uninteresting.

If there is one thing that I’ve observed when it comes to her it is how mental flexibility pays off. I regard myself as being very open artistically but I’ve been pretty rigid business wise since the old-fashioned model followed by others has been: record labels.

My impression of establishment people though is that they usually pick up on trends as they become untrendy. They appear to be consistently late to the party (we are talking years) yet they are relevant due to two things only: funding and infrastructure.

Innovation and creativity bubbles up into the mainstream from the underground, but this obviously isn’t only valid for the music industry, it goes for business models, fighting, political systems and everything in between.

When taking into consideration how vulnerable our systems are there should be no doubt to anyone contemplating this that we will increase our chances of survival as distinct population groups and tribes by decentralising. By having scattered units throughout a territory it will be difficult for severe climate threats or human threats to wipe out an entire people. Even a plague might not spell the end. This whole obsession with centralisation creates slow-moving Mammoth systems vulnerable to total destruction.

A couple of times I’ve come across localised educational initiatives to teach children about survival. This is an act of genius since it prepares the very young for what to do if the current system collapses. The more prepared a civilian population is the more do they enhance their odds.

Reminder to self: be a Cheetah.

 

 

The International Women’s Day.

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.

IMG_4927

 

 

Trump can’t fire anyone and neither could Tsar Nicholas II

I highly recommend reading this article!

evolutionistx

The late reign of the Russian Tsars was marked by their near total inability to exert their will over anything.

At Tsar Nicholas II’s coronation festival:

Before the food and drink was handed out, rumours spread that there would not be enough for everyone. As a result, the crowd rushed to get their share and individuals were tripped and trampled upon, suffocating in the dirt of the field.[39] Of the approximate 100,000 in attendance, it is estimated that 1,389 individuals died[37] and roughly 1,300 were injured.[38] The Khodynka Tragedy was seen as an ill omen and Nicholas found gaining popular trust difficult from the beginning of his reign. The French ambassador’s gala was planned for that night. The Tsar wanted to stay in his chambers and pray for the lives lost, but his uncles believed that his absence at the ball would strain relations with France,

View original post 1,396 more words

Looking For Saviours In A World Full Of Fake Messiahs.

Hordes upon hordes flocked towards _____x_____ in the hope of salvation.

Abiding by whatever words bowing down into praise. Enthusiasm and faith filled the masses so eager and hungry to believe that here lay the answer to all of their misfortune.

Rage, unhinged gripped them if any critical voice questioned their dedication to the new doctrine, for nothing that was being said by ____x____ could be untrue or misleading.

High on hope they flocked to __x___ exalted into euphoria by any words spoken, yet they came back home to what they abhorred and shackles and chains that were only tightening.

One by one they started suffering longterm after ideological application, with a shrine in their homes brightly gleaming, vacant and alone.

Those words so well spoken now turned into rot gnawing at their faltering expectations.

Some kept believing while others now started to doubt, but rather than acknowledging what their presence had created they turned against ____x____ since this Messiah was just another one made of stone.

One would think that wisdom would gain ground after a disappointment such as this, but no, it didn’t take long before ___x___ came along and the people resounded with the same old song.

 

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.