The Triumph Of Reason.

Standard

The other night I fell asleep while reading about an astonishing “scandal” breaking the internet, about a fired google employee who was sacked due to a “controversial” memo going viral.

The document in question is named:ย Google’s Ideological Echo Chamberย and offers a reasonable explanation as to why politically correct sensitivity and diversity training isn’t helping the company but rather creates discrimination. The document also explains how biological differences between the sexes can explain why there is a lack of females in tech and in leadership roles.

This is written by a man who labels himself as a classical liberal, which is refreshing to see as the only individuals adhering to science and reason in this day and age are those on the right who are referred to as extremists by those on the left.

Nothing of what Damore wrote about women in his memo is controversial, quite on the contrary. It is basicย knowledge that any basic book about the brain will address.ย The Chimp Paradox.

In fact he could have gone further by writing about the well documented biological differences between races (and ethnicities within races). Which he did not do.ย Diversity โ€“ Why It Is A Complex Issue.

Of course he tried to be sensible by suggesting solutions to the gender gap and was almost apologetic in his writing style as he was obviously afraid of having his memo deemed null and void due to the common tactic of accusing a free-thinking individual of being either a misogynist or a racist. Poor Damore … he should have read this:ย When People Can Not Process What They Are Reading.

To claim that the modern left are ideological fanatics would be a gross understatement. I’m just waiting for people to resurrect the belief that the earth is flat. Science is only championed as long as it aligns with political correctness, if it doesn’t it has to be suppressed.

The other day I released a blog entry titled:ย Trumpโ€™s Haters.ย In this entry you can clearly see the coordinated assault on the president of the United States by a media unified in their ideology. Whether it is a music magazine, a men’s magazine or a women’s magazine. These type of publications are meant to entertain, providing people with the latest fashions, advice, celebrity interviews, reviews of products – simply put entertainment; yet they all go way out of their intended spheres by using their platforms as tools of propaganda.

The world of social media is no different. During Barack Obama’s presidency there were many who claimed that conservative Facebook groups were shut down in America. We don’t have to look any further than Germany where citizens have gotten into trouble due to their “anti-migration” statements online. Right-wing bloggers have recently had their PayPal and Patreon accounts suspended and the latest revelations from Google adds to the impression of a left-wing totalitarian reality where reason, history and questioning is mercilessly crushed all in the name of ideology.

An ideology that doesn’t seek the truth in all things, as truth and facts would be its undoing.

This is why we need to repeat a limited selection of slogans over and over and over without ever really questioning what any of these modern values stand for – because ifย we do – we might realise that we’ve been duped.

The reason as to why I named this entry The Triumph Of Reason is due to James Damore’s incredible bravery in pursuing truth rather than convenient fiction. Yes he got fired and yes that wasn’t right, but he dared to challenge the current orthodoxy and that in and of itself is noteworthy in our current ideological dictatorship where only one perspective and only one voice reigns supreme largely unchallenged – or at least that was the case ย until Donald Trump won the presidential election in the U.S.A.

On the left we find a cult of absolute hatred. A group of people so disenchanted with their nation’s history and the sacrifices and labours of their ancestors, that they willingly cast it all aside in the blind belief that this will somehow redeem them from the sins of their fathers. The West was evil because the West won. The West was evil because it conquered. Warfare can only be forgiven if it is egalitarian in nature. Rather than looking at our history in awe they look at it in embarrassment and seem to believe that only a total replacement of European ethnic groups can relieve them of any guilt; and the same sentiment can be seen over in America. Especially on their college campuses.

Progressives believe that history moves towards a Utopia, that the human race naturally gravitates towards a global nirvana. This is why Donald Trump’s victory was so very traumatising and why his administration causes modern liberals to cry, as any classical liberal, conservative or traditionalist is a roadblock in our progressive destiny. It is a step back into darkness.

And this is precisely why those on the left consider those on the right to be the enemy and why they throw a hissy fit whenever questioned or opposed.

You are mean. You are bad for simply asking questions or playing “the devil’s advocate.” There ought to be no such thing, only blind devotion to “the cause.”

Needless to say; there is no space for those who are in the center. Regardless of how reasonable you might think it is to be an open-minded moderate:ย Opinionsโ€ฆ.

Like St. George James Damore slayed the dragon or at least bruised it; more people need to come forth and speak up against the current transformation in the west, as individuals like Damore face a future where they’ll be forced to drink from a chalice of poison rather than simply losing their job.

The putrid hatred will not stop at censorship it is only the beginning.

When one sees feminists airing the idea that pregnant white women should abort their babies, when intellectuals play with the idea that newborn white children should be taken from their mothers and exchanged with black babies in order to create a more accepting society, when opposing replacement migrationย in the western world is seen as controversial, when commercials intended for the Northern-European market no longer contains white people (see below), when celebritiesย and MTVย can get a carte blanche for racism as long as it is directed towards white people – then the time has come to put our foot down.

I repeat one more time – this putrid hatred will not stop it is only the beginning ย and this negative development with potential severe implications in our part of the world is not something that we should indulge any further.

Of course Google responded to Damore’s memo by stating that they champion diversity of ideas and freedom of expression – this is precisely why they fired Damoreย as Damore’s memo just happened to clash with their code of conduct….

GOOGLE1GOOGLE 2GOOGLE 3GOOGLE 4GOOGLE 5GOOGLE 6GOOGLE 7GOOGLE 8GOOGLE 9GOOGLE 10

I pasted all of this in since controversial information has a tendency to conveniently disappear … what follows is some evidence of our current transformation over here in Europe. Today I was sitting in a roundabout and peeked out of my window. What I saw was a beer commercial featuring an Arabic looking man and a cellphone commercial featuring an African man, when we drove further I saw a commercial for a sports channel featuring an African and an Arab. Now bear in mind that I live in England. England is an island located in Northern-Europe. In fact here is a map of where England is geographically located:

800px-England_Map_Europe

 

This was a YouTube ad for this year’s general election in the UK … Apparently this is England in 2017. Underneath I’ve pasted in the front cover of a magazine lamenting the lack of diversity here in England. Last time I checked – this isn’t Africa. If the people of England and other European Nations don’t have a home that is theirs anymore then where do we go??? The YouTube ad is very representative for what you see more and more of in terms of commercials here in England. To support this is actually racist.

 

IMG_3386IMG_2330

 

This is an old English puzzle. Take a good look.

Here you got an example of a story featuring a Muslim man mysteriously disappearing. The same has a tendency of happening with race-related articles. They just vanish.

 

This is an online survey launched by a YouTuber:

IMG_3387

This is a must watch.

 

 

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

Standard

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 2017ย 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. ย 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?ย 

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 toย 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. ย 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.ย 

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 Bjรธrvika 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.ย 

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 ย 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 likeย Gamal Atatรผrk, 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 ย 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.