When People Can Not Process What They Are Reading.

Standard

Years ago I remember taking offence to a Serj Tankian song called “The Unthinking Majority” I thought of the title as extremely arrogant and felt it was disappointing that a political artist, or at least an artist with politically motivated work, would express himself in such a way.

I took offence to howย The Chimp Paradox.ย was presented as well as I don’t think of it as a good idea to address the masses like they are mongrels.

I don’t talk to people like they are s-t-u-p-i-d, I have no interest in saying “those people over there.” I’m part of this world just like everyone else, I’m not above the law, I will fail, I will be wrong and just because I’m right about certain things doesn’t mean that I will be right about others. (Depending on how you define what is right or wrong). We are all hiding behind statistics funny enough and drag out surveys like a final piece of evidence. Yet statistics can be misleading, which is why every side has “evidence” to back up whatever claim they might have. Yet once you de-bunk the collection of data, it might not seem as straightforward after all… ย someone disagreeing with you politically doesn’t give you the right to dismiss them as unintelligible, unless it has ย been clearly debunked time and time again that what they support is inefficient and false. Meaning: that “truth” has been consistently buried and banned on their part so that their “ideology” can prevail well-guarded from justified scrutiny.

” If I disagree with you, you have to be retarded…” is not a particularly well thought out argument. The same goes for name-calling. If you want to pull the “you are an idiot card” you truly need to have a substantial amount of hard evidence, just as if you are going to pull the “you are insane argument.”

Yesterday my brother and I had a very long and interesting conversation as he is currently reading a lot about genes & IQ. This is of course a very controversial topic as the current orthodoxy is that there is only equality. We spoke and agreed about the grandeur of a meritocracy, discussing how evidence shows that the general IQ at universities have increased since “future leaders” are recruited from all aspects of our societies. The general “intelligence” has therefore gone up since education isn’t only reserved for the children of the wealthy. Yet….the dark side of the moon are quotas enforced when politicians decide that they want to lift the “entire population” or 50% of the population up. As amiable as this may sound like it is simply not do-able.

The result will be a collection of educated people, with official papers for jobs that they cannot really do. This might seem un-fair, but it is actually true. (feel free to read up on all of this, there’s lots of information.).

(It has now been brought to my attention that this increase apparently can be seen among higher university education and that the average is actually decreasingย dramatically when it comes to the “regular” student body. So a bit different than what I describe here. Note added on Friday 28th of July 2017).

As horrid as it might be, 50% of the population will not be geniuses. If you drown people with knowledge this will not change as their brains just cannot process the information.ย This is of course very depressing if you fundamentally believe in “giving everyone a fair chance” by raising the population up, stretching towards national greatness. I take it that this is why those who “headhunt” for the best have to look internationally, to poach “the best people” for their projects.

Yet among the best you also have some cases of those who over think to such an extent that they almost think themselves into idiocy. That’s when ย degenerate social constructs are presented to the world, as it might make sense logically if you disregard the human factor or if your brilliance is restricted to one field. There are also those who use elaborate sentences, spending an enormous amount of time on research only to be biased or completely off the hook in terms of their conclusions. The mind is a tricky beast.

Different groups of people have different trait frequencies. There is a plethora of information regarding this. I’m currently reading articles that would certainly come across as “controversial” to all of those who subscribe to the notion that ” we are all created equal.” That said, just because we are “all created differently” doesn’t mean that civil liberties should only be reserved for a small group. I suspect that the furore against “admitting that genuine diversity exists” reminiscent of mass hysteria happens, because people don’t want the idea of “this group being better than that group” gaining ground once again. My point is that “supremacy” or feelings of superiority will emerge regardless, as people will always “find something” to make them “stand out,” even if it is not “legitimate.”

Whether it is a financial situation making someone feel superior to those who are destitute or whether destitution raises ones victim status to such heights as to make someone morally superior. Grievances can be perceived as legitimate and worthy of punishment by the state directed towards those guilty of wealth. The rich person might feel superior but the poor will too, as their struggle makes them superior morally speaking. Rich = mean, poor = good.ย In terms of appearance it is “all about personality” since slim and/or pretty = mean while fat and/or ugly = nice. A person who looks good and uses this as an asset might feel that this is the “ace up their sleeve,” but just as this can create a sense of “I’m better than you” the traditionally unattractive can relish in their misery by again being seen as the “victim” or “challenging traditional standards of beauty.” Someone who is good at school/academics and/or good in any other field such as sports, music, business you name it, will feel that thisย is their “ace” whereas those who aren’t good at anything at all can take pride in being morally virtuous since they are unambitious. They are nice because they will not make anyone else “feel bad” by beating them in a competitive sense.

Being honest about “diversity” is not the same as treating people horribly. It means being honest and aware of the challenges a nation faces, both internally and internationally. How can one create the best school system for example if people are in denial?ย Maybe it is a good idea to focus more on practical training than merely theory designed for the brainy? Maybe a division at an earlier age would be an idea, so that those who hate reading could thrive by learning “how to be handy?” Maybe segregating the genders, so that boys can be approached like boys without being reprimanded for not being like the girls could benefit boys who are falling behind in the effeminate education system? ย What will result from such a religious devotion to modern orthodoxies as we have today is the firing of any academics who dare to uphold “the truth,” which brings to mind the popular representation of “the dark ages.”

It seems like our enlightenment has gradually brought us closer to darkness since any truths violating the ย “feelings” of a group, regardless of how marginal the group is, are discarded or left in obscurity.ย Writing about democracy, in fact mentioning and addressing in-depth any of the issues mentioned above could result in volumes upon volumes of material, which is what we supposedly have academics for. They are not there to be fired if their findings collide with the “values” of our modern “dictatorship of goodness,” it is their job to find the truth or to seek to find the truth through empirical evidence.

To demonstrate how frustrating it is with people who cannot process information that isn’t even particularly complex, I’ve included a series of screen shots below. This is how democracy looks like in practice, this is why it is easy for critical thinkers, obsessed with “truth” to fall into the unforgiving, melancholic, grip of misanthropy.

On Friday, the 24th of March 2017, these three individuals were trending on FB…

Trending on FB

Katie Hopkins was making waves online due to her commentary about the terrorist attack in Westminster. People were raging because she had the audacity to suggest that England has a cultural problem and that the UK is weak in spirit. Her commentary pretty much addressed what I had been addressing in one of my own blog entries, so I was of course puzzled by the negative reactions she experienced as what she had written seemed spot on. (Unless one chooses to be in denial). While I was scrolling around the timeline connected with the “Hopkins topic” I came across a guy in the USA. I agreed with his entry and shared it on my personal FB.

Online Democracy 1

What followed was a public online argument where the guy who had authored what you see above had to defend himself from people who clearly didn’t understand his original post at all. It is not hard to comprehend what he is saying. An interesting thing to note is that he didn’t know that his post was set to “public….”

Online Democracy 2

Obviously I’m trying to protect the identity of these people, as one does…You can see that one individual agrees, then one is clearly disgruntled about Hopkins, someone else agrees, but then enters a very typical argument: “rather __________, than racist.” This is a slogan that has been advocated by Swedish Feminists in particular.

Racist Clear.

What you see next is a very typical argument…”the guy was British.” Well…to be fair no he was not…This was a muslim man of foreign descent, who happened to have a British passport and citizenship…in this day and age that is not really the same as being from that particular nation. A woman of absolute muslim descent, walking around in full traditional, muslim dress, is not Norwegian just because she happens to have a Norwegian passport. She is a citizen yes, and is lucky to live in a western country, where you can enjoy the full benefit of citizenship regardless of where you originally come from. The lady (note how these individuals are women) clearly does not understand the argument from the American man. Her conclusion is that he is “racist clear” whatever that may mean…..

Enters a proper Racist.

Then enters a proper Racist. This clearly illustrates what I’ve been addressing on my blog in so many of my entries. The guy who initially started this discussion has up to this point engaged in arguments protecting himself from the false accusation that he is racist, then enters a real racist, who generalizes and is completely unapologetic in his views. An argument then ensues between the “accused-non-racist” and the “I’m-proud-to-be-racist-racist.” The leftists have succeeded in destroying the meaning of the word “racist” just as they’ve dismantled the word “hate” as used in “hate speech.”ย False accusations of people being “brown shirts” have taken away the severity of “you areย a Nazi” since everyone who at this point questions the left in any way is labeled “literally Hitler.” The unavoidable result is that people will just get nauseated whenever the WW2 argument is brought up, and not for the “right” reasons…..people might even start saying “yeah…what did we really fight for? Maybe the Nazis should have won?” these type of sentiments will probably become more widespread as a result of the left’s way of arguing, rather than an explosion of pro-Nazi sentiments. In other words, if you poke someone long enough they’ll get sick and tired of your bullshit.

Exit Nazi & Permission to share posts

A certain somebody asks for permission to use this discussion in a blog entry….the racist from the previous frame, admits that he is proud to be what he is.

Enters random guy.

Another character enters claiming the “he was British argument” before the classical “IRA argument” is brought up. In fact this whole thread illustrates all the common narratives in the current political climate. Note how the “new arrival” in this thread uses the “fake news” narrative. The American who accidentally ended up in a public discussion, that ended up highlighting all of his points due to the contribution by those who are hating on him, is becoming tired….as can be understood by his posting below…

the IRA argument

Argument continues

The American who started the thread tries to conclude the discussion, at this point he also adds one of his comments in the thread into his original post, in order for people to see where he is coming from. The lady with the “IRA argument” clearly can not let it go, so another discussion then ensues with an evidently tired American, baffled by the inability to process basic information displayed by those attacking him….

Arguing Online.jpg

The thread, as it looked like at that point, ends with this:

Conclusion

This discussion alone prove the points I addressed above. It would have been one thing if these screenshots were my only evidence…..but no…hold on… I got more……

The argument below is more sophisticated in nature due to how the participants express themselves. Regardless of this the topic is the same; I’m calling this sequence ” The Oxford Argument.”

OA1

The post attracted one individual who decided to express his dissent….this was counter-attacked by a guy who was clearly interested in commencing a discussion.

OA2

OA3

OA4

OA5

” I read that paragraph but I just hear racism.” Again that same old card is used in an incorrect manner. Also note how these individuals perceive Muslims as the victims and any precautions on the part of “the west” as unjustified racism. The argument is made from “the dissenter” that concerns about Muslim supremacists are justified, especially when seen from a historical perspective. This of course clashes with the current orthodoxy or the false enlightenment claim, that all men are created equal. By admitting that there is an enemy you are merely engaging in discrimination. Even when “the dissenter” specified “NOT ALL muslims” it was still concluded that he was a racist and “good riddance.”

My last example before I conclude my entry stems from my very own Twitter. Yes you’ve read that right. I launched this blog a couple of years ago at the request of my fans, not really knowing what my blog would be about. ย I’m not a “pink blogger” I like to read, and enjoy to think, discuss and write about what I’ve read. I’m a virtuoso musician and would classify myself as pretty geeky. My blog entries where I’ve written about personal matters have proven very popular and overall I’ve certainly seen that people adore entertainment while abhorring intellectual discussions. I’ve shared my blog entries on my Twitter and in my entries I usually provide people with links to the articles and/or YouTube videos that inspired me to write that specific blog entry, so that people can see my “sources.”

This year I received a request to do an interview about my entries for the very first time. I was asked about the content on my blog regarding Islamism mainly, since it seemed like the interviewer was obsessed with ‘the terror threat.” I replied to the best of my ability and said among other things this:

“Itโ€™s obvious that there are some who are just born with a โ€œcomplaining gene.โ€ We are spoilt in our part of the world. I donโ€™t think thereโ€™s ever been a point in history where people had it better. There is healthcare for everyone, there is so much food that the poor are obese, everyone has access to some sort of education, pollution levels are much better than they were under the industrial revolution for example, you will not be imprisoned or chemically castrated just because of your sexual orientation, women can get an education, work their way up into the system. You can come from a minority background and become the leader of a nation or go into important government positions in a country that you werenโ€™t even born in. Weโ€™ve come as close as we can get to Utopia and should just be happy, but no. Then you get people complaining about trans-gender bath room issues, micro-aggressions, sexist snow-removal and pronouns. There is no end to the stupidity. I believe in equality when it comes to the starting point and opportunity, but it has now been brought to my attention that those who talk about egalitarianism usually advocate equality when it comes to outcome. Which doesnโ€™t make any sense to me.”

I also said this:

“Yes, there are plenty of disturbing videos of this, Iโ€™ve posted some of them on my blog. You got angry young Muslim men shouting and then you got angry young white men shouting. Looks like a mess, especially if tensions escalate.”

Then you got this:

“I assume that the majority are afraid, because people like to conform and donโ€™t want to be ostracised. They see what happens to those conservatives and classical liberals who speak out and decide to stay quiet, whereas those who shout the loudest are those who hate immigration because they actually are real racists and real nazis.”

…and this:

“What it is that we want immigrants to โ€œintegrate intoโ€ for example is a question nobody is asking. We keep on mentioning vague values, that apparently are โ€œour shared values,โ€ but it can easily seem that we donโ€™t really have a cultural identity anymore. It is not strange that foreigners should be horrified at the fractured families of the West or the unintelligible mainstream entertainment we have that produce nothing but icons of degeneracy and vulgarity.ย High culture of beauty and excellence is something we have sacrificed on the altar of modernity. Spirituality and faith has been crushed and is routinely mocked. Masculinity is actively worked against in the school system. It is understandable that people would be reluctant to โ€œintegrateโ€ into this. Letโ€™s not forget that. After all, why should anyone respect a culture that doesnโ€™t even respect itself?”

If you read through these segments you will understand that this is not a racist talking, but someone who is concerned, especially if you read the whole interview.ย What I say is critical of militant Islam and the effects of “the change” that has been imposed on Europe. When asked about: “What about Islamism in Scandinavia? Have you been back to Norway recently? What do you see happening there?”ย I replied in an honest way; describing a country where immigration has become stricter but where certain specific changes were observed by me during some visits back home:

“1-Norway has changed to such an extent that my father and I were the only white people at a supermarket up in the mountains, deep into the fjord land.
2-Iโ€™ve had elevator rides where I was the only white person and the only woman not wearing a burqa.
3-Iโ€™m not even Norwegian anymore, Iโ€™m an ethnic-Norwegian apparently.
4- I visited my grandmother some years back and there was a terror warning on the news โ€œtoday the terror alert has been raised to severe.โ€ That, in particular is ridiculous. Why are we supposed to accept this as a new reality?”

First of all it is important to specify that Norway is not America. If you live in the USA and you get surprised by encountering an Afro-American or a Native-American, well then you got issues. America has always been a diverse “nation,” there was diversity among the caucasian population, there was diversity due to slavery and the “original population.” Norway is not America. We got Norwegians and then we got Samis, who are nomads living up in the North, moving around between Northern countries with their reindeer, etc; It is just and right to question the changes that have been imposed on Scandinavia, as these are neither natural nor justifiable IF they result in demographic displacement or gradual demographic replacement. It is racist, to support this type of activity and the fact that these type of measures are supported and initiated by ethnic Europeans is nothing but extraordinary.ย (Obviously I have to specify that there is a major difference between some immigrants here and there, and demographic displacement/replacement. I hope that people can comprehend that….) It cannot be justified in any way, that English people should all of a sudden find themselves becoming minorities in certain parts of their country, nor can it be justified that there are “no-go-zones” in Sweden, but an interesting thing to note, and this is important, is that I highlight that the worst of these changes is the terror threat, that we are supposed to treat as “normal.”ย 

So far so good, one should hope, but no. Even though it should be ridiculously easy to follow what I’m writing above, I received this tweet after the release of the interview:

evil CIC 2

Curious I decided to check out this individual and saw this:

CIC evil1

First of all I said in the interview that I don’t live in Norway anymore. I also said thatย “my father and I were the only white people at a supermarket up in the mountains, deep into the fjord land.” This describes a supermarket. I also describe being in an elevator as the only woman not wearing a burqa. I’m clearly describing a country undergoing radical fundamental changes. But I’m not describing an entire town, and seen from a European perspective it all makes sense, if you’ve followed what I wrote above. In the interview I can be quoted as saying ” Iโ€™m not even Norwegian anymore, Iโ€™m an ethnic-Norwegian apparently.” Again this goes to demonstrate a “core change” within a Nation. I’m not even Norwegian anymore.” So you see a change of word-use in terms of how an ethnic group is being addressed and labeled. This is not minor.ย Obviously this is not hillbilly talk, as a hillbilly would probably behave like this:

Enters a proper Racist.

Some months later I received another Tweet from a different individual as a response to a blog entry I had published on January the 30th, 2017.

twitter argument.jpg

These are some quotes from the blog entry that he was referring to:

“We need to make sure that we advance into the future โ€œwith baby stepsโ€ so that we can successfully integrate the new-Europeans into the fabric of our societies, without losing ourselves.”

We are reaching a tipping point & the only sensible course of action would be to do everything in our power to prevent escalated chaos within our continent.”

“….then why not keep those who like it here & have integrated well, while sending out those who do not?”

“If โ€œrefugeesโ€ thrive at the expense of the original European population, it will create anger and resentment within the ethnic populace and rather than directing this anger towards government figures, we run the risk of this sentiment being directed towards innocent muslims.”

These things are clearly not written by someone who hates ALL Muslims. This is obviously written by someone who is concerned about EVERYONE. And someone who is critical towards Militant Islam. No wonder that people give up, when those who are “moderates” or tempered in their assessment, are accused of being “racist.” I did the dumbest thing and decided to engage with this man in a short Twitter argument as I obviously assume that my fellow human beings “can understand what I write.” I’ve made the mistake of expecting people to be reasonable. Which brings us back to the very beginning of my very long entry…. Here are the Tweets:

T1

t14

T2

T3

t10

t11

t12

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

Again, I’m obviously not racist, but then comes the kicker:

t9

At this point I realised that what I was engaging in was pointless….When I then saw the thread further up in this entry later that month I realised that I had to write a blog entry. It is a serious issue that so many cannot comprehend the information that they are presented with. Sure, it is tough to read science papers, especially if written in an academic language, it is difficult to read ancient literature, of course this is hard, but none of what I shared on here today is. None of it. None.

This is why politicians talk “down to people” this is why there are PR agencies that are commissioned to create and manufacture easy slogans and “perfect” official personas. People who never say anything that contradicts or challenges the orthodoxy, even when they are aware of how bad things are, such as Podesta.ย This is how corporations get away with blood on their hands, because they are good at marketing and making their products “human.” How healthy is this for a society and how healthy is it for the west? Not particularly, which I’ll address in my next entry, where I’ll discuss an article I read some days ago about “Politics vs. Emotionalism.”

Opinions….

Standard

They can make friends out of polar opposites and enemies out of peanut butter & jelly. I’ve spent sometime thinking about this recently. Social tensions were sky-high in the UK during the Brexit vote while it has been reported that family and friends are falling out in the US over the current election. It might come across as if though we are more sensitive than ever before, but I’m starting to wonder if this has its fault not just in the current state of affairs but also in our social media usage.

Continuously and unapologetically you are indirectly confronted by opposing political and religious views through what your online connections are sharing and liking. Let’s say that you are a firm believer in socialism and the agenda of the left’s political parties. You believe that higher taxes on the rich and/or corporate will fuel social reform in order to create more equality in terms of opportunities. You believe that the “state” will reinforce whatever legislation that is necessary in order to protect the rights of the people and that the bureaucrats will be an un-compromising wall between capitalists trying to gain control over natural resources that in your opinion should either belong to the people or nobody at all. You firmly believe that corporatism and big business is the greatest evil on earth, that privatisation is Satan incarnate and that only a humongous government can ensure justice. This justice would theoretically only be valid if it is on a global level, as a patriotic charitable nature would mean “discrimination” towards other cultures, which could be abstractly translated as racism.

Let’s say that these are your political leanings and that you feel strongly about this. People are emotional about the future that might await their children and most people probably feel that morality guides their leanings. The irony is that all sides feel this way. The starting point is the same, we simply disagree in regards to the measures that would get us to a subjective ideal point, where the future of our nation and/or the world would be in a better place.

If you feel that privatisation will result in the obliteration of the planet there is a high probability that you would feel quite emotional whenever you encounter opinions that disagree with this. You care about the future, you are naturally worried, problem is, you’ll be confronted indirectly by “global warming/global climate change-deniers” just by logging into your own private social media account. No longer will your realisation of other people’s leanings be limited to face-to-face discussions, you’ll form your own impression of the individual’s beliefs based on nothing ย but their online activity. This will fuel prejudices from any side and countless facepalm moments as you cringe at other’s “un-educated nature”.

This is the underlying issue with opinions. We are all surrounded by propaganda. News stories and articles that are twisted and worded in certain ways, as the author tries to desperately manoeuvre any potential reader in the “right direction”according to them. Where we come from as individuals, meaning our individual underlying perception of right and wrong, combined with whatever filter we perceive the world through, form our opinions.

Those on the right roll their eyes at the miss-informed,ignorant left, while the left bang their head in the wall over the un-educated, prejudiced right.

And like this we are eternally locked in a weird Tarantella dance. The infamous dance of the mad.

You always have to question where the information comes from and always bear in mind that opinions are shaped by facts that might be untrue or presented in such a fashion that our emotions get the best of us. In a highly emotional state it is reasonable to believe that we would make highly erratic decisions in order to save the future from what we believe would be destructive. The disturbing fact though is that we cannot be fully sure that we are aiming at the right culprit. We might find ourselves “executing” the innocent, burying the living. We might find ourselves in situations where what is morally right in the moment will lead to disastrous results in the future that are even more immoral.

Always question everything and never trust your own mind a 100%. Question yourself just as you question others. Your perception of reality might be completely false. Always raise questions about those that construct our perception of what “is” and what “is not”.