If you’ve been following my blog for a while you’ve witnessed me going through a number of journeys. A music journey, a personal journey, a political journey, a spiritual journey, and so on. I’ve covered important books, funny conspiracy theories, biased news, and a whole range of other topics. I’ve shared stories from my own life, my thoughts and predictions, memes, you name it.
For quite a while I’ve been contemplating my own definition or my own take on what it means to actually be a conservative.
First of all: what does the word conservative mean?
According to a quick Goggle search it means the following:
- averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
- (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.
The first definition makes it sound like creativity and conservatism are incompatible, that you would somehow burn your phone and declare war on silicon valley, moving into a cave somewhere. The second one is also of interest. What if I decided to barter? Would bartering exclude me from being a conservative? Or what about non-governmental voluntary redistribution of wealth on a small limited scale? Would that also exclude me from the conservative label?
If people were to ask me about conservatism what springs into my mind are these things in the following order:
- Heritage: population groups, family trees, buildings, artworks, stories, history, languages, museums, music, flags, food, etc;
- The environment: plastic, emballage, air pollution, food pollution, water pollution, deforestation, extinction, honey bees, etc;
- God: a proper religious alignment and a realisation that humans are not at the centre of the universe in terms of importance. We are not God, we are bellow God striving to be better. This could in theory be lumped into the first category, but that wouldn’t ring true for Scandinavian Christians, South American Muslims, or African Jews. If you acknowledge the world of spirit and choose to live your life in accordance with such things (regardless of religion or spiritual tradition) it is a major deviance from “secularism” or “atheism” where you would deny the existence of the other worldly (in most cases). You would probably deem it irrational due to lack of tangible evidence and credit any religious feelings to “severe superstitions.” Any stories of supernatural phenomenons would be dismissed as manifestations of mental disorders or sensationalism in order to attract attention. Those who hate religion hate it with feverous passion and would probably be very happy to stomp it out permanently.
To me this list makes sense because it all boils down to the act of conservation. You don’t want your natural habitat to be destroyed, nor do you want the cultural markers of your group to be eviscerated. You acknowledge the world of spirit, following in the footsteps of countless ancestors, rather than declaring yourself (or any other human) for God.
I think a great number of people would disagree however with my list since declaring oneself a conservative seems to mean that your core value is money worship in this day and age. I however disagree with this notion.
If you are a Christian, for example, you must be well-aware of how money-worship is not supposed to be the focal point of your existence. Sharing equally with your brothers and sisters in Christ is an overarching theme….
In terms of freedom, a much cherished value on the conservative side, I have this to say:
You genuinely owning your own property makes you empowered. If you don’t want your house to be confiscated by the bank or the government, you would not only have to own your own land, but you would also need the ability to defend your land.
You owning the means of production would also make you empowered in terms of your own business. Under all other circumstances you are not.
Leading a sustainable lifestyle would also empower you. Owning your own farm, being energy independent, owning your own water, would put you on top of your own pyramid. No water bills to pay, no electricity bills to pay, no antibiotics or poisonous chemicals in your steak, etc;
The issue is exploitation and insatiable greed. It is currently impossible to not be somehow complicit in the global abuse of labour. Everyone has to make money somehow, the question is whether you will build someone else’s dream or your own.
If you choose to construct something for yourself you’ll have to have quite a start capital in order to be truly “in control.” In most cases you won’t, which means that you’ll depend on infrastructure controlled by others. Even if you were to be perfectly empowered, monopolies could potentially squeeze you out of business in the long run. When huge companies create a habit in people where they get used to franchise merchandise costing close to nothing, it will force other lesser known “brands” to lower their prices due to the expectations that have been implanted into the heads of consumers.
This in turn fuels “wage slavery” and “sweat shops” regardless of whether or not the merchandise features the face of an outspoken celebrity vehemently opposed to such activities. Unless you control the means of production, you control nothing.
Consumers in turn might think that they have a million options when all of the different roads are essentially controlled by the exact same people. I guess the key is to create the illusion of diversity, with few corporations gaining massively on people’s innate tribalism: like record labels.
“Hip Hop stinks” or “my artist is 10X better than your artist” are manifestations of tribalism regardless of whether or not it all comes down the same conveyor belt.
Those who are smart would make a profit of those on the left and those on the right, arm tribe A and tribe B, offer high-end products to the wealthy while simultaneously selling low-end products to the poor.
Most wouldn’t be able to do this however, so trying to empower oneself on a small-scale is in most cases a challenge great enough.
If you choose to grow your own produce you are indeed empowering yourself in addition to helping the planet. Not only will you get vegetables free from poisonous pesticides, they will also be plastic-free, transport-free, more nutritious, tastier and cheaper. Ironically enough you’ll not be growing the economy if you end up being self-sufficient in terms of your greens.
Likewise if you were to ask a relative to help you with something it would amount to an exchange of favours, hopefully beneficial to both parties. Much of “running-a-family” falls into the category of bartering. One member will handle one task, another member another task, and so on and so on, depending on how big the household is. This will also fail to grow the economy since you are not hiring outside help.
It will be cheaper for you to keep things inside the family, but in terms of “the economy” it would be much better if every single interaction you had throughout your life was based on nothing but financial transactions. The ultimate extreme-capitalist Utopia would be one where there was a charge for everything and no human relations came free of charge.
This sounds cold and “inhuman.” Another variation of extreme-capitalist Utopia could be one where no workers are needed and the working class is permanently removed. No one will probably write or say these type of things in the mainstream media for the simple reason that if thousands or millions of people figured out that their replacement and eventual removal was the end-game of technological automation there is a danger that they might attempt to “kill the machine” right now. There is no justification for keeping excessive hordes of people around on a planet with limited resources but for now you are not supposed to dwell on that fact. What if you were to rebel?
It is virtually impossible to not spend money or cost money if you are simply alive.
Let’s say that you were to spend your entire day in your house. Bedridden.
This uninspiring activity would still cost you.
Going to the toilet is not free.
Drinking out of the tap: not free.
Flushing the toilet: not free.
Keeping food in your fridge, even if you choose not to eat anything: not free.
A cup of tea: not free.
Turning on the light: not free.
Charging your phone: not free.
Wifi: not free.
Even laying in a house half-dead isn’t free since you’ll be charged for the luxury of having a roof over your head in one way or another. Even if you are co-living with others there might be other expenses or activities that you are contributing to. So no, dying a slow death in your bed will still cost you and in most cases if you don’t pay up you’ll be kicked out of your bed. So is the bed ever really yours? Probably not.
None of this sounds like freedom because none of it is.
If anything it sounds like a great pitch for family values, because if everything costs and freedom is unobtainable you can at least share the burden and the struggle with your own tribe. This would probably make everyone’s life way better than everyone being atomised and on their own. In theory it would enhance your tribe’s survival chances since these are greatly reduced if you are one lone person.
If you collect rainwater and have access to your own water well you will be empowered.
If you somehow create your own plumbing and sewage system, you will be in charge.
If you can create your own energy, you will not be subservient.
If you can produce some or all of your own food you will be your own master.
If obtaining freedom is of importance to you it will be imperative to become independent from both private businesses and government institutions.
Only then will you be free to sit in your own house without anyone billing you regardless of your own productivity.
Only then will you be free…
….but you will still not be free from God.
Fighting for liberty and justice is an ongoing eternal issue that could easily become a full-time occupation without any major gains.
I think I’ve compared “deconstructionist” efforts in the past to Samara, the girl from The Ring franchise. I think I’ll elaborate on that by saying that she could symbolise the force of anti-human totalitarianism instead. It is a bad idea to pin this exclusively on a political movement (or a political party) since it is in many ways like a force of nature, a negative one, the dark to the light.
There will always be warning signs before a crazed lone-gunman unleashes his untamed fury upon an unsuspecting group of innocents and likewise there will always be warning signs before societal collapses.
When the EU reaches its ultimate form and they finally have the power to control their “subjects” exactly how they want under their jurisdiction it will already be too late and many will then wonder why they weren’t warned…….
The advocacy against Article 13 & Article 11 failed, and this could be since campaigning was way too fragmented and due to the message not being relatable enough.
There has been a lot of focus on how damaging the Copyright Directive could be for creators but the majority of the populace are obviously not YouTubers. Among those who are YouTube creators there will always be those who are professional and who know the ins and outs of intellectual rights due to being copyright owners themselves, but the majority might be largely ignorant due to lack of management/representation and lack of general awareness.
Many threw themselves on the YouTube cover trend since this gave people subscribers and views very quickly. I myself often wondered how on earth there could be such a great demand or interest watching the one cover after the other of the exact same song. Don’t ask me why there is such a demand for this … but the bottom line is that there is and that most successful YouTube channels have grown not due to original creativity but due to performances of already established works. This might come to a total end with the signing of the EU Copyright Directive which happened today (or yesterday depending on your time-zone).
I threw myself on the Article 13 & article 11 #saveyourinternet campaign since I’m alarmed at the multiple warning signs coming out of the EU displaying their total disdain for the general population and the totalitarianism that they are clearly aiming for when it comes to what sort of future they are building.
This is not a future that respects or take into account the internal European cultural and ethnic diversity that we have here already, nor does it seek to protect and communicate historical accuracies, nor does it seek to make information spread easily, since there is obviously a desire to meticulously micro-manage whatever narratives that are allowed to float around on the internet.
Witness accounts regarding targeted violence towards ethnic Europeans have routinely been hushed down (in some EU territories this has been more severe than other places), since there is only a yearning for carefully constructed propaganda in addition to increased surveillance. This in spite of Angela Merkel herself admitting to all of the internal issues in Germany over failed integration of migrants, before she then decided to do a total political turn and open up the whole continent to anyone who wants to come. A fun fact is that there is currently a lot of heat between the USA and Germany since the Germans have declared that the cost of immigration is such that they cannot commit to NATO expenses….
Assuming that a one-size-fits-all mentality could function for the entire European continent with all of its innate diversity sounds mad. You cannot even move around in this territory without knowing multiple languages. People are very tribal and not knowing how to communicate locally will get you a lot of static, in fact it will be impossible for you to function. You have to speak many languages if moving around within Europe, this is not optional, it is a must!
When it comes to increased steps taken to monopolise “speech” and “story-lines” I ask this:
- Does this sounds like what we learned in school about East-Germany and The Soviet Union?
This is where we are heading in full force ourselves, yet people will not care too much about it yet since “it doesn’t affect them.”
Any person regardless of gender, race, orientation, beliefs, background, whatever, can be a YouTube creator, it could be anyone, yet the mistake that was made by many was that they did not mention the bigger or fuller picture:
- Several news articles cannot be accessed from EU territories, including the UK, since the UK is merely a province of the EU and has no sovereignty or power of its own.
- In addition to this there is also the desire to make it illegal for Europeans to talk about immigration, regardless of the historical implications of mass population movements and regardless of the fact that inter-European tribal movements define us.
- Nobody really reports on the staggering increase in vandalism towards Christian churches in France. Anti-Semitism is also on the rise, but according to an article I read not that long ago anti-Christian hate-crimes amount to over a 1000 incidents over a year, with anti-Jewish crimes passing the 500 mark, anti-Muslim crimes in comparison was at a 100 incidents. The question of course remains why this isn’t part of the mainstream news picture?
Simply trying to rally people around their favourite entertainment platform wasn’t enough, but I’m sure that more and more warning signs will come out of the EU and at one point or the other there might be enough people who are directly affected by the changes for it to make a difference….
I’m currently reading about The Russian Revolution and what strikes me as fascinating is the fact that there were several minor revolutions before the big popular one. Prolonged mass-mobilisation was a bit of an issue since demographics dropped off once their particular group received whatever compensation that they wanted.
When their specific group was being looked after it was all good!
There is no reason to believe that Europeans will react any differently.
“For as long as I’m fine I’ll be quiet!”
Imagine a future where you are only allowed to blog or post content online if you have a permit or a license obtained after extensive political screening by some official department. You might be laughing today….but for how long?
Long I’ve been wondering when the French people would revolt again. I started writing political entries on my blog due to what has been going on in France. If I as a Norwegian become angry after only having lived in France for a year then what can we expect from those who are actually French and are totally tied to the land?
Well here we go! Macron was the last straw it seems.
This is what happens when people vote for politicians they think look fancy; you get Trudeau, Obama & Macron. Just because someone’s got swag or can put together a nice sounding speech doesn’t mean that they’ll fix it all! Someone might have charisma and come across as a cool guy (or gal) that doesn’t mean that they’ll be fit to rule anything.
This is probably the most brilliant piece of propaganda material I’ve seen in the digital age! Here is Macron enjoying a luxurious holiday while his country is in flames!
“Let them eat cake” indeed!
This is modern leadership at its best! Sending out state-enforcers to mutilate and assault disobedient civilians while the leadership is chilling out in some beautiful location far away from the filthy “plebs,” who by the way fund the whole state system through taxes and purchases! “Shut up & consume” indeed! OBEY!
“Helping out” used to be the norm back in the day when our ancestors were more tribal and more connected to their immediate and (probably also) extended family.
The modern concept of “responsibility” means: gathering resources (making money) so that you can pay the bills that you have your own name on.
It usually means moving away from your family, preferably as far away as soon as possible, but not because you are starting your own tribe. It’s just vital for you to get away!
Back in older times responsibility meant: gather resources (hunting, foraging and/or farming), while there were other layers of responsibility that were acknowledged such as doing housework and looking after children among other things.
My situation as a teenager was dramatically different to that of my Norwegian peers since I actually had to help out with my younger siblings.
I did my part but felt miserable about missing out on what my friends were doing, in addition I also found gender-bias to be frustrating: namely that it was merely assumed that I as the oldest girl had to help out. When older women pointed out that this would be great experience for me when I one day started my own family, I was further angered at how it was just assumed that I would go along with gender-typical alignments.
When we moved to London and our Asian landlords assumed that I would be helping my mother in the kitchen I once again felt an inner dissonance, why did people just assume this?
Fast forward and I’ve realised a number of things:
- I didn’t really miss out on much during my teens.
- Whatever lessons I learnt from helping out; other people my own age simply had to learn later.
- A number of my old friends had to acknowledge that their parents had been right and that their own “rebellious” time as teenagers had neither empowered them nor benefited them long-term.
- While other people were hanging out and partying I acquired proper skills.
- What I learnt from dealing with my family taught me things that I’m sure can be applicable to other situations, it even inspired me to write a children’s book.
- Helping out in the family is the norm in Africa, South America, The Middle East and (probably also)Asia and this is a benefit when it comes to having strong family units.
- It is much better to be part of a tribe (family) rather than family duties being outsourced to the impersonal State/government. It also saves taxpayer’s money to keep as much as possible within the family.
- I would much rather help out with stereo-typical female things rather than going to war or lifting insanely heavy objects.
- Stereotypical gender roles became stereotypical gender roles for a reason; and most people don’t even question it or think about it.
- The more people can do on their own and the less dependent they are on the supermarket-culture the more they enhance their chances of survival.
- I’m probably one of the most well-prepared Millennials in the Western world when it comes to managing and running a household properly due to my experience of co-running things with my mother. Not because I’m so awesome, but due to how uncommon it has become with traditional family structures and inter-family responsibilities. This is not a bad experience to have, especially when considering that the world is filled to the brim with other cultures where family is still seen as an important corner-stone.
- Nobody is too important to take out the trash. The Western world is failing due to an attitude problem and a value deficiency I’m sure!
Please don’t forget about Article 13! Watch the video at the end of this entry!!!
Lately I’ve been mentally drafting an entry about citizenship in an open world. There are so many contradicting laws that makes no sense especially in combination with facilitated mass movements of people. It is indeed a very interesting topic for many reasons:
- Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
- Assuming that immigration laws make sense is naive since a number of measures are carried out in an attempt to create an image of governmental efficiency.
- Assuming that a territory will be more welcoming towards geographical neighbours also fly in the face of incredibly generous offers directed towards non-bordering territories. A territory might be legally more hostile towards people next door.
Just when I had all of this in the back of my mind I came across The Windrush Scandal that perfectly illustrates my point:
- You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
- You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
- All of a sudden you find that your status has been revoked several years even decades after you were welcomed into the territory and that you are all of a sudden being treated as an illegal immigrant.
- The digital revolution has wrecked havoc on the old system of file-keeping. So if you were born before 2000 you might struggle to get hold of school records and other “evidence,” because you were born before mainstream digitalisation. When I was little my name was just added in my parent’s passports, you had to have your own passport once you were a teen or something along those lines, so government bureaucracy and technological changes can easily land you in a grey area.
Did anyone say an open world? Think again. This is a topic worthy of a giga entry because the issue puts into question a myriad of things that we just assume in today’s digitally and commercially open world.
- Just because a piece of paper grants you legal access doesn’t mean that you and your family will actually be safe – because there will always be many layers of “borders” – and if locals are pissed off and unhappy they might create their own border-control “service,” which you probably do not want to deal with, ever.
- An authority might change its mind about you or the ethnic demographic that you belong to regardless of whether or not you actually represent a threat as an individual or as part of a generalised group. You might just end up being targeted so that the government can look busy.
If the Windrush scandal illustrated anything it is how dangerous the illusion of an open world actually is. You might be safe in terms of residency for 40 years only to wake up one day to find out that you’ve been labeled an “illegal immigrant” and that you are on your way to a detention facility.
Here are some petitions to share about a more peaceful issue: the environment.
“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….
….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.