What Being A Conservative Means To Me.

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:

  1. averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
  2. (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:

  1. Heritage: population groups, family trees, buildings, artworks, stories, history, languages, museums, music, flags, food, etc;
  2. The environment: plastic, emballage, air pollution, food pollution, water pollution, deforestation, extinction, honey bees, etc;
  3. 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.

 

 

 

 

 

Take my wife, please !

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!

West Hunter

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. ]

For background:…

View original post 102 more words

Immigration Red Flags, Article 13, & Petitions To Sign & Share.

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:

  1. Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
  2. You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Once again:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Fracking

Whaling

Plastic Pollution

Exotic Zoo Animals

Trophy Hunting

Detained Whales

Dog Fighting

 

 

 

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.

 

 

A Crash Course In Politics. (What It Is And What It Is Not).

Translated by me from the Norwegian article: ” The Paradox of the lifeboat – a crash course in politics” by Kent Andersen. Originally published on the 4th of April 2017 right here.

I love discussing politics – especially with people who I completely disagree with. As there is something deliciously civilised in fundamentally disagreeing about a topic, while still being respectful towards the other party. But after ten years in politics a problem surfaces: Way too many people don’t understand what politics clearly is, and what it is not.  And that’s not just the voters. I often read journalists and politicians who reveal a very bad understanding of what politics really is. I will therefore offer a quick and useful course to all.

When important democratic actors lack political understanding, it becomes a sign of illness for the democracy, as there is an absence of a firm foundation upon which right decisions can be made to steer society in the right direction. Everything from voters to kings have to see the difference between politics and its absolute opposite, emotionalism – if not the entire society can wither without anyone noticing or understanding the warning signs. Politics is not exactly cosy. It can even be quite brutal stuff in brutal times, so let me say something about that.

What is politics? 

Politics is synonymous with distributing assets and burdens in a society through the use of power. It is the business within a social system and field of ruling towards firmly established goals, where priorities have to be sorted, values/assets allocated and means chosen and used.

Keywords are therefore: Benefits and burdens – management and goals. Priorities, distribution of value and means within a social system and field. It is politics. The understanding of this determines whether or not our children will inherit a society at least as rich, harmonious, peaceful, safe and successful like the one we’ve enjoyed, something that is the entire point of the political management of a country: The goal is to leave behind something better to those who succeed us. How best to accomplish this, is disputed. That is why there exists different political parties, directions and ideologies.

What is the opposite of politics?

The definition of politics facilitates the identification of politic’s antithesis: Emotionalism.  Emotionalism has enormous appeal to voters and politicians alike, because it is so easy to unite around, and appears to be so “nice” in the moment. But emotionalism does not encompass leaving an improved society to our successors. Emotionalism is about the creation of the best society in the moment. Regardless of what the cost may be, or how the future will pan out. It is a competition of virtue-signaling – without any consideration for coming generations. Politics is responsible. Emotionalism is irresponsible.

“We cannot pit weak groups against each other.”

This is a favoured phrase for the emotionalists or for people who know zero about politics. Any budget is precisely about “pitting weak groups against each other.” Politics is exclusively about comparing groups: to prioritize who will get, and who will lose. To put A up against B is the exact meaning of politics. So if anyone utters this ridiculous sentence, then point at them and yell “emotionalist!” As they are about to ruin everything for your children.

With emotionalism the resources are always infinite. 

The budget can always be blown up by loans so that nothing has to be prioritized. “Everything is possible,” and nothing is impossible, and there are no negative consequences. Everything occurs in the vacuum of the moment, no burdens have to be distributed, and all future problems are marginalised, silenced or refuted. Emotionalism also lacks any standpoints besides good intentions: Everyone will receive, and nobody has to pay. Everything can grow into the heavens, nobody should feel left out, and nobody should lose. It is a reckless “free lunch,” that is tempting to fall for, as the dangers are not obvious: Emotionalism functions just as well as politics – in the short run. Emotionalism can actually erect a collection of magnificent public buildings in Bjørvika to billions of Norwegian kroners, in a capital that is broke, where tax levels are sinking, and loans decrease. Everything works out quite well….until the bill arrives.

Emotionalism works – short-term. 

Emotionalism is incredibly tempting to politicians who are elected for short stints. It works, and creates more friends than enemies. Emotionalism purchases votes in exchange for cash. But the price is high, as emotionalism is a credit card: Success always happens at the expense of the future.

Ruling through emotionalism means that nobody knows where they are heading, or where they will end up.

Ruling through politics means that everybody knows where they are heading, and where  they will end up.

Politics means keeping a clear, steady course, and communicating it: “We are going there, and not there.” It means a common understanding of where the end station is. (Without everyone necessarily agreeing on it – politics has nothing to do with consensus, if that was the case it would be lethally boring). Greats like Gamal Atatürk, Margaret Thatcher and our own Einar Gerhardsen, are in a class of their own, since they engaged in society building with a long-term vision, with clearly defined goals, plans and means. (Many hated them, but so what?) It was easy for the voters to understand what their society was to become. Emotionalism on the other hand, has no end goal, no plans for how to succeed, and no empirical success data to show to. The emotionalists promise everything to everybody, and promise that everything will improve as long as they can keep going a little bit longer. But they are lying. Coming generations will pay the price, and they will hate it.

It is not politics if:

  • You don’t lead after clear plans towards a defined alternative, but rather satisfy everybody in the moment.
  • You lack clear, quantifiable goals for the future which tells you what the end result should be.
  • You lack clear priorities. If one political sector is to be the focus, then others will lose focus and support.
  • Assets/valuables are allocated, and it is obvious who will benefit, but unclear who will carry the burden.
  • The means are hidden or diffuse.
  • There is more consideration for activist groups than the silent majority and coming generations.
  • The politics take place outside the voter’s social system, territory or sphere of interest.

There are therefore many criteria that have to be fulfilled in order for something to qualify as politics. If we look at the Norwegian leadership today, we can see that within several of our sectors the criteria are being met – whether it is the fishing industry, the public school system, or common transport. The only matter that stands out like a sore thumb, is Norway’s immigration policy — it is not only Norway, but also Sweden and the whole of Europe. In this area the checklist display big and systematic deficiencies:

The emotionalism that steers immigration:

  • Immigration is “impossible to control due to international laws and conventions, ” and is therefore not really managed. There are no systems or policies that ensures knowledge of what next year will bring.
  • Immigration politics have no clear goal and no clearly defined outcome that can be evaluated.
  • There are no clear priorities, besides the fact that the funds are infinite regardless of the cost – in contrast to for example, social help for the elderly, where there is always a lack of funds.
  • Assets are distributed without ever revealing who carries the burden: Welfare for the elderly, welfare in general, roads, school, police and the military are typical sectors who see their funds decreased, but the context is often hidden and badly communicated.
  • Activists wield enormous power, while the majority is marginalised.
  • Immigration is accomplished outside the nation’s social system, territories and spheres of interests. It does not benefit Norway or its inhabitants, but benefits other  countries and other nations’ citizens.

Politics is cynical in relation to what is needed.

Sadly politics come across as pretty “mean” in comparison to emotionalism. Politics is about conserving the voter’s own interests both today and in the future, and it is therefore “egotistical” over other countries and people. (But they have their own politicians, so why do they want ours?) Real politics can undoubtedly be perceived as cynical and brutal, because it encompasses a bone-hard knowledge of reality:

Resources are seen as limited and the budget absolute: If someone receives, there will always be someone who loses. When you walk in direction A, you remove yourself from direction B. The emotionalists always attempt to conceal such consequences, therefore there exists a good basic rule: Real politicians will always gather more opponents and critics that the emotionalists. Politicians become controversial, but look way better in posterity and historically when the easy emotionalism has been forgotten.

An illustration of how politics work: The story of lifeboat 4.

When (the for the occasion) fictional passenger ship “Politikos” tipped over and sunk in the North-Atlantic they failed to deploy all their lifeboats, and nearly 500 people jumped into the ocean. The few lifeboats that were actually deployed were not fully loaded, and it was therefore instantly initiated to rescue people from the ice-cold water.

Aboard lifeboat 4 the sailor….let us call him Winston Roosevelt, was given command of the freezing horrified passengers. He took control, and commanded immediately with an authoritarian voice:

– This lifeboat takes 50 people. Now we have to do everything to save people!

After a while there were 40 people aboard and the lifeboat was heavy loaded. Nobody knew how many days it would take for the rescue team to appear. The rations were limited, the future uncertain, but despite this Winston was crystal clear:

– There are more survivors! Row over there! We have to do everything to save people!

A cluster of 8 people were picked up. There was barely space for them. There were still too many people struggling in the ocean but Winston was uncompromising:

– There are 4 more! We have to do everything to save people!

They rowed over, and carefully hauled the four aboard, so that the boat was dangerously overloaded. But it did not help much. Eight people were laying ten meters away from them and were screaming for help in their utter desperation. Then Winston commanded:

– Row away!

Everyone aboard protested with tears and anger. They yelled:

– You said we had to do everything to save people! Winston gazed over the cramped lifeboat, and said sorrowfully but steadfast:

– That’s what we’ve done. Now we sadly have to get political.

Lifeboat 4 was the only one still afloat when the rescue team arrived.

Emotionalism can clearly be seen in a political environment where the photo of a drowned kid washed up on a beach dictates consensus rather than the collection of empirical data. This mentality could also be observed when Norway’s former leadership constantly declared that “Norway was not at war” despite deploying our soldiers to contribute to NATO’s military operations.