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 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.

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 how The Chimp Paradox. 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…  someone disagreeing with you politically doesn’t give you the right to dismiss them as unintelligible, unless it has  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.)

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. 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  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. 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 this 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? 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?  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  “feelings” of a group, regardless of how marginal the group is, are discarded or left in obscurity. 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.” False accusations of people being “brown shirts” have taken away the severity of “you are 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.  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:

“It’s obvious that there are some who are just born with a “complaining gene.” We are spoilt in our part of the world. I don’t think there’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 weren’t even born in. We’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 doesn’t make any sense to me.”

I also said this:

“Yes, there are plenty of disturbing videos of this, I’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 don’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 “integrate into” for example is a question nobody is asking. We keep on mentioning vague values, that apparently are “our shared values,” but it can easily seem that we don’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. 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 “integrate” into this. Let’s not forget that. After all, why should anyone respect a culture that doesn’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. 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?” 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-I’ve had elevator rides where I was the only white person and the only woman not wearing a burqa.
3-I’m not even Norwegian anymore, I’m an ethnic-Norwegian apparently.
4- I visited my grandmother some years back and there was a terror warning on the news “today the terror alert has been raised to severe.” 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. (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.” 

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 that “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 ” I’m not even Norwegian anymore, I’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. 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 “with baby steps” 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 “refugees” 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. 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.”

Birthday Time!

Standard

The mighty, unsinkable Titanic hit an iceberg on the 14th of April, this date also happens to be my birthday!

My day was off to an ideal start as I hung out in the local town with some really great people! I truly enjoyed my night out! This morning though I was woken up by my family standing by my bed singing  … so it’s good that I was drinking responsibly … ufff … it sucks to be hangover … not only is it unhealthy, unflattering, painful and everything in between, it is not particularly classy either if you are a woman/girl … it’s so much nicer to just have some pints and chill out. Not that I was ever a heavy drinker nor a regular one either, in fact anything but. I always felt strange as a teenager being the only one turning down weed, cigarettes, never trying drugs of any kind and/or only drinking occasionally. It takes guts to be honest if you really don’t like the taste of liquor for example in a culture where “not drinking” instantly labels you as “extremely awkward.” I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it is preferable to either have no relationship to alcohol or a healthy, moderate one, something that isn’t really promoted in a way, culturally, if you think about it…….

Today I received one of the coolest gifts anyone has ever gotten me! A typewriter, and not any old type writer either. It is light, comes in a sleek 50’s bag and doesn’t make much noise either. It is an Olivetti Lettera 22 !!! A proper vintage classic, in fact an iconic modern artefact :):):):)

It’s absolutely fascinating to have an “acoustic” machine, to be able to write without a shining screen, without constant notifications popping up all over the place, having “instant print,” not to mention the fact that there is no spell check of any kind. This puts a lot of pressure on the writer as you really need to know your “stuff,” which is particularly hard if you are dealing with another language 😉

I love the font on my typewriter as well. It is precisely the kind that I’ve enjoyed using when writing the books that I’ve been working on lately.

Fascinating to sit and write on “old-fashioned-machinery,” I’m just intrigued by the whole technical aspect of it. Think how amazing it is what human beings are capable of! It is truly magnificent.

I started working on two separate stories instantly and hope to be very productive with my typer. That’s a thing as well: no one can hack you at all whatsoever if you are creating “acoustically,” interesting how “old gadgets” seem more enchanting than new ones!

It’s a good idea to detach oneself from the “enslavement” of the smart phone. Outsourcing phone numbers, addresses and simple maths to your handy companion is not good for the memory!

Besides gushing over my gift and wonderful flowers I had a great day, writing, hanging out and eating amazing food.

My lovely sister made a fantastic yule log all by herself. It looked fantastic with lights and the whole shebang. My mother cooked up a lovely feast for us all 🙂 She is an amazing cook!

Tomorrow I’ll be getting ready for something as abstract as a holiday :O Who would have thought? This time I’m actually heading someplace warm as well, so prepare for Instagram pictures hash-tagged with “the south.”

Needless to say there’s been a lot that has been blog worthy as of late, lots and lots of information, news, etc; Such as benefit fraud in the UK, young UK people who are struggling so much that they need assistance from organisations that usually help people in Africa, genuine homeless kids in the UK who are being taken advantage of and the overall glorification of the plight of the overworked in the USA.

I’ve received a lot of hits on my skin care entries over the last weeks so I was wondering if the time had come to do another blog entry for female readers again, specifically, addressing women’s/girl’s issues. In terms of big politics, which is always intriguing … the right divided itself over Trump’s strike in Syria, raising the question in my brother’s mind of “who are really the people?” It is an interesting question worth pondering …  all I see are differing opinions and denominations regardless of which political platform that is the “umbrella organisation.” Not much new-information is needed for people to part in terms of what they support and believe in, even when the core principles might be the same.

There was a terrorist attack in Sweden, which oddly left the nation shocked … there was an attack in Russia, that no one in the western world seemed to care much about, then there were horrible attacks on Christian churches and worshippers of the faith in Egypt … the whole “flag filter” thing seems to have disappeared? I guess there was too much turbulence … it is probably good to hush things down as much as possible I assume … Millennials are apparently more conservative than previous generations, the government are cracking down on Alt-righters, Shia “the flag waver” is not doing particularly well in the UK with his latest movie and so on and so on and so on.

So much to read … so much to write … so little time !!!!!

 

 

 

 

I will destroy you … because you disagree with me!

Standard

Some serious music-industry heavy weights have turned down performing at Trump’s inauguration as they don’t want to be harassed online by “tolerant lefties” or boycotted in the future. As ridiculous as all of these childish reactions from “SJWs” seem, bear in mind that an author has been in the receiving end of an avalanche of negative book reviews on Amazon after he harassed Ivanka Trump on an airplane.

Traditional conservatives, new conservatives, classical liberals, alt rights and individuals placed in the centre are not any better if they sink down to the “lib-tard” level. As tempting as it may seem to shower intolerant people with their own medicine I do believe that anyone who condemns the tantrums thrown by SJWs, have to restrain themselves so that they do not end up looking just as silly.

If you have the facts on your side and truth leads you to your conclusions, you should be equipped to win the discussion and the argument. The establishment kill itself through its failures when its standpoints are implemented, such as the Feminist Snow removal in Stockholm.

Of course not all policies from the establishment is condemnable, but their social engineering certainly is.

Keep in mind that everyone seems to be convinced that their narrative is the correct one and that everyone who contradicts it is the ignorant, un-educated party … hallelujah.

The Complexity Of Citizenship & Governance.

Standard

I’ve come to the conclusion that if I was to post a blog entry and say something every time I read something that upsets me, I would be fully occupied and wouldn’t have time for anything else.

It is obvious that civil liberties have to be fought for and protected at all times as there will always be an excuse by governments and/or corporations to take them away. It might happen gradually as it is in western countries or it might happen abruptly as it does other places, if you scare the population enough they might even give up their liberties voluntary without ever wondering if they’ll get them back.

The worst though, is the feeling that someone else is making decisions that could affect you negatively without consulting with you first. This is something that happens quite regularly as elected government officials obviously don’t hold a referendum each time a decision has to be made, but then again we trust that they will make decisions that are good for the country and it’s people, or good in the eyes of those 51% who voted for the winning candidate.

Previously I’ve defended the NHS here on my blog as I feel that healthcare for all is a must in any society, after all you’ll always have the choice to go to a private clinic if you have the funds. Life is equally impressive as it is fragile, so to assume that you will keep your privileges or your health for ever is nothing but naive. Having the opportunity for help if worse comes to worse is an important role of the government and/or charitable societies unless we are to have a reality where you’ll be thrown into the gutter the second the winds of life stop blowing in your favour. There are people out there who literally cannot function within “the system”, should they be left to die like other animals would in nature or is it our duty to look after the weaker links of society? Some may argue that the responsibility falls on the family of those who fall behind, but is that a valid argument in a society  where the importance of the family unit has been deliberately (or not) deconstructed?  There will be people who would question how the welfare state would eventually be paid for and that is a tricky one to answer as corporations and the rich usually run away if taxes are set too high.

But then, is it really the duty of the wealthy to pay for everyone else?

Does high taxes on the rich and a welfare state stifle initiative as critics would suggest?

Or are people more likely to shun contributing if taxes aren’t enforced, making the welfare state necessary?

How to finance the welfare system, with an “aging population” remains a hot topic.

The idea of taking in the whole arabic world to get new taxpayers in, don’t really work either as not all of them would be fit to work and contribute. You’ll also see the culture of your country slowly change due to higher birthrates among immigrants. It is not racist to point this out, in fact it would be racist not to point it out as England for example isn’t Morocco last time I checked… Eventually Europeans will become a minority within their own countries, if our birthrates keep on being low. This will obviously be mirrored in how people will vote and what sort of ideas that will be promoted and supported. Take London for example that just elected its first muslim mayor, a man who has been supportive of terrorism before, blaming terror on the west, as terrorism of course has to be the result of horrid western foreign politics. The idea that hate could be generated without nothing but a “divine cause” seem to fall on deaf ears.

There doesn’t have to be a logical reason for hate. In fact it could be debated whether there ever is a reasonable or logical reason for such things in the eyes of the sane. Then again it could also be debated what sanity actually is, if we were to stretch it further.  Would you beat someone to death just because they crossed your way and you felt very angry on that particular evening? No I thought not ( or I hope not) yet that happened and here is one such story: Read Here.

Random violence is hardly anything new. There doesn’t have to be an understandable reason for it. Was there ever a good reason for religious violence for example? No. Only in the eyes of true believers, who fundamentally believe that the world would be a better place if everyone were forced to abide by a “holy book” written or dictated by an invisible, divine, entity.

This just made me think of the worrying character that is Ted Cruz, oh sorry, I mean “The Anointed One”, whose wife apparently had a revelation by God himself that Ted Cruz was God’s man on earth. If the church was ever to point their finger at someone and scream blasphemy I’m amazed that they didn’t do so with Cruz. To suggest that a mighty force capable of creating not only us, but the earth and the whole universe, would anoint Ted Cruz as his man, is an insult so grand you just have to laugh. Thank God he finally called it a day, but then again, I guess this religious lunatic will still be politically active, taking care of important Godly business such as banning sex-toys. Yes you read that right.

Back to the NHS, which isn’t by all means perfect. They’ve handed over a million patient files over to Google (Read Here). This is something that worries me deeply as all information shared with your doctor is supposed to be confidential. The official excuse is that the NHS can hand over your medical history if it is in the name of research and if it will be used to improve their service, BUT how can they trust that Google only engage in ethical practises?

By handing over all these confidential medical files, they show how a trip to the doctor  isn’t confidential anymore and we should worry that a company that believes in “singularity” should get access to such sensitive information.

Google does not believe in individuality, in fact, their futuristic vision according to what I’ve heard is a world where man merge with machine and we all become one, which means imprisoned, within technology. Their technology obviously. Considering how much data Google must have access to, just by knowing your search results and what resides in your browser. I wouldn’t trust them with giving them my medical records as well. I mean what are they REALLY going to do with all that information?

The worst thing is that if you address issues like these, your critics will start talking about “getting their tin foil hat out” which is ridiculous. There is no conspiracy lurking anywhere, in fact there wouldn’t be any need for “conspiracy theories” as everything is out in the open. TTIP for example is something you can inform yourself about, and if you were to do that you would understand why I dedicated a whole blog entry tearing it apart and condemning it along with the EU. The problem though is that people who fail to see the possible negative consequences of a big brother government or cynical businesses, usually fail to gather any critical information about the topic.

They just assume that any big decision made by the governing elite is for the best and that anyone who criticise is paranoid. They blindly believe and are impossible to argue with, just like deeply religious people. Is the same mentality. People with a political affiliation, will surprisingly often believe that those who disagree with them are “low information voters” and that their own specific political conviction is superior. (This is something else I wanted to dedicate a whole entry to, but hey I’m not a professional political/social commentator and as I said in my introduction above, writing entries like this will take up your whole day and life if you are to be a 100%).

I know for example that EU officials officially say that there is nothing to worry about when it comes to the TTIP agreement, but I also know that corporations have sued nations for getting in their way before and if something like that wouldn’t be used, then why allow it into the TTIP agreement in the first place? If you are not going to use it, then why add it?

The criticism addressed towards the TTIP agreement is obviously based on what’s within the TTIP agreement.

So I’ve done what I can do as a law-abiding citizen, I’ve written about it and shared it with my followers. To my surprise it became my most read blog entry so far this year, which I find very encouraging and then I signed a petition, joining over 3 million other people in doing so. If I was to take it further I could see if there are any anti-TTIP demonstrations, but then that would be where my involvement would stop, as a law-abiding citizen under the current governing forces.

The fact that government regulations have to be put into place to ensure that mega businesses don’t abuse their workers, poison their consumers and destroy the planet completely, makes me question what their deal is. Are big businesses inherently evil creations since they only chase profit no matter what the outcome is? And is that really the only mentality of a mega business? Can’t you have a corporation that isn’t cynical and potentially abusive? And at the end of the day, what ensures that a government is truly kept in check? Big governments = Big business. A fact that liberal people have a tendency of forgetting…

I’ve read about the Bolivian Water War (Read Here) where they wanted to charge people for using rainwater or water collected from their own private wells. So what is the end game really? To charge people for breathing? To charge people if a rain cloud is situated in someones airspace and it starts raining on someones field?

I remember seeing an interview with the CEO of Nestle, where he stated that anyone who believed in free water, was an extremist.

Ultimately I don’t think that human beings are capable of ever constructing a perfect system of governance. Half the population will always complain and be unhappy. It seems that because we are so fundamentally flawed, we can only create dysfunctional systems, where there will be abuse of power and inequality in one way or the other. You’ll have the dictatorship of the mob or the dictatorship of the few, which isn’t an exact statement either as it could be debated. Communist countries (where the mob should rule, technically) always have a ruling elite that keeps all privileges for themselves, in a “democratic” society a politician could become a flip flopper according to public sentiment, a good example is the roller coaster of foreign politics from the USA, that mirrors the back and forth politics created by their two dominant parties. One president and one administration might have one specific vision, then comes the new president with a new administration who actively tries to build down what the previous administration was working on. The public can also let their emotions get the best of them….cynics know that, which can make the masses easy to manipulate. Something that looks good today, might look disastrous 10 years from now. There have been instances for example where large sums of money have been collected by an emotional population, meant to help a country in need, only for abusers to put this money into their own pockets. Western generosity can potentially enable genocidal activity when funds fall into the wrong hands.

Ultimately it can be debated whether the rule of the few always is the case, unless “rule of the mob” is politically convenient/beneficial at the right moment. Certain EU countries that have voted to leave the EU during their referendums have simply been ignored. They did not vote “right” so their votes didn’t count.

Then again, what is the point of letting people know that their democracy isn’t working? Is it a deliberate attempt to create instability?

Anyway…. my point is: don’t trust anyone and read information from different sources, don’t let your only source of information be liberal media or conservative media or Alex Jones , your view-point will be moulded like that of a religious fanatic, you’ll ultimately be impossible to debate with.

There is good and bad hiding in every camp, evil though is something that we should all unite against….or?

Cannot evil also be subjective? Yes it can. I would classify ISIS as a great evil, but the Islamists of ISIS would look at themselves and see only righteousness in the eyes of God.

And that is something to be worried about and bear in mind….