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

Please don’t forget about Article 13! Watch the video at the end of this entry!!!

Lately I’ve been mentally drafting an entry about citizenship in an open world. There are so many contradicting laws that makes no sense especially in combination with facilitated mass movements of people. It is indeed a very interesting topic for many reasons:

  1. Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
  2. Assuming that immigration laws make sense is naive since a number of measures are carried out in an attempt to create an image of governmental efficiency.
  3. Assuming that a territory will be more welcoming towards geographical neighbours also fly in the face of incredibly generous offers directed towards non-bordering territories. A territory might be legally more hostile towards people next door.

Just when I had all of this in the back of my mind I came across The Windrush Scandal that perfectly illustrates my point:

  1. You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
  2. You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
  3. All of a sudden you find that your status has been revoked several years even decades after you were welcomed into the territory and that you are all of a sudden being treated as an illegal immigrant.
  4. The digital revolution has wrecked havoc on the old system of file-keeping. So if you were born before 2000 you might struggle to get hold of school records and other “evidence,” because you were born before mainstream digitalisation. When I was little my name was just added in my parent’s passports, you had to have your own passport once you were a teen or something along those lines, so government bureaucracy and technological changes can easily land you in a grey area.

Did anyone say an open world? Think again. This is a topic worthy of a giga entry because the issue puts into question a myriad of things that we just assume in today’s digitally and commercially open world.

Once again:

  1. Just because a piece of paper grants you legal access doesn’t mean that you and your family will actually be safe – because there will always be many layers of “borders” – and if locals are pissed off and unhappy they might create their own border-control “service,” which you probably do not want to deal with, ever.
  2. An authority might change its mind about you or the ethnic demographic that you belong to regardless of whether or not you actually represent a threat as an individual or as part of a generalised group. You might just end up being targeted so that the government can look busy.

If the Windrush scandal illustrated anything it is how dangerous the illusion of an open world actually is. You might be safe in terms of residency for 40 years only to wake up one day to find out that you’ve been labeled an “illegal immigrant” and that you are on your way to a detention facility.

Here are some petitions to share about a more peaceful issue: the environment.

Fracking

Whaling

Plastic Pollution

Exotic Zoo Animals

Trophy Hunting

Detained Whales

Dog Fighting

 

 

 

Trump can’t fire anyone and neither could Tsar Nicholas II

I highly recommend reading this article!

evolutionistx

The late reign of the Russian Tsars was marked by their near total inability to exert their will over anything.

At Tsar Nicholas II’s coronation festival:

Before the food and drink was handed out, rumours spread that there would not be enough for everyone. As a result, the crowd rushed to get their share and individuals were tripped and trampled upon, suffocating in the dirt of the field.[39] Of the approximate 100,000 in attendance, it is estimated that 1,389 individuals died[37] and roughly 1,300 were injured.[38] The Khodynka Tragedy was seen as an ill omen and Nicholas found gaining popular trust difficult from the beginning of his reign. The French ambassador’s gala was planned for that night. The Tsar wanted to stay in his chambers and pray for the lives lost, but his uncles believed that his absence at the ball would strain relations with France,

View original post 1,396 more words

“The Reactionary Mind – Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump“ by Corey Robin.

“The men and women killed on September 11 were not citizens of a democracy; they were earners, and rewards would be distributed accordingly. Virtually no one-not even the commentators and politicians who denounced the Feinberg calculus for other reasons-criticised this aspect of his decision.” (p.218)

Thankfully I did not receive any new books for Christmas this year (2018) which is great, considering that I still haven’t read the ones I received last year. 

After all of my political outbursts and writings there could hardly be a better title to end my “Things To Read“ section with in 2018 than Corey Robin’s “The Reactionary Mind- Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump.“

I have a deep admiration for good writers displaying broad vocabulary usage, especially those who engage in extensive harvesting of information.

This is its own virtuosity for sure and I find it very impressive.

Characters like Robin would probably not be particularly gobsmacked by my own writings but see it as a source of opinions in a bundle of many.

That being said; Corey’s work is an analogue data-base of other people’s opinions presented to those of us who are not academics or to those who are hoping to climb that mountain.

He presents his collection of conservative thinkers brilliantly and convincingly argues his point.

It is particularly illuminating for someone like myself to read it; in fact I would go so far as to call it mandatory reading for anyone on the right spectrum of politics.

What really stood out to me and what I ended up highlighting in the book were sections regarding economics.

I was stunned to read quotes from Hobbes who would have greeted a 1984 super-state with open arms. His definition of free-will is something that I’ve come to consistently ridicule pointing out to my relatives when reading, talking or hearing about abusive behaviour: “well according to Hobbes this is free-will in action if you choose to be a victim!”

I was equally mortified by Edmund Burke’s view on labour but certainly saw in his writings the justification for wage-slavery in today’s modern world.

It is simply impossible for an individual to condemn chained-slavery in one sentence only to proclaim that one endorses freedom and liberty while endorsing Burke. There is no such thing.

Edmund Burke had no respect for the individual or humanity as quoted in Robin’s book. A terrifying individual whose theories should be held up as a horror-example of what one should fight against.

Likewise, I was angered when reading quotes from Ayn Rand who came across as a delusional fraud, the antichrist incarnate, without any concern for her fellow humans at all. Robin demonstrated this by comparing quotes from her with quotes from Hitler. They aligned perfectly.   

Thank God for Adam Smith who came across as the only sensible thinker in regards to labour.

Obviously it all made me think about my own efforts in regards to my art and inspired me to initiate a new art-concept for this year (2019) named: “The Value of Labour.“ 

I will not go into great detail in describing this particular art-project until the end of the year.

“When labor becomes the norm, in both senses of the term, culture does not stand a chance.” (p.163)

I highlighted several quotes in the book that were of great interest, but I will not quote them all here since it dawned upon me during Christmas that I have a tendency to write rather large book-reviews and quote what I read to such an extent that it all becomes a bit too much.

Ultimately I want people to read the books that I mention but I also want to share information since we live in a time where people don’t seem to take reading seriously!

I have to say that it feels strange to read a book written in proper American. Rather than writing labour, the text goes for labor instead. The same can be said for the usage of the letter z or c vs. s. After having gotten used to the more French way of writing English words, it feels like I’m reading simplified English.

What I find troubling about “The Reactionary Mind“ is that Corey Robin is portraying Democrats and liberals as inherently peaceful and “lame” which couldn’t be further from the truth, he also fails in addressing current political movements such as: transgenderism, LGBTQ, 3rd wave feminism, racism, censorship and iconoclasm, and declarations of total war written by members of the political left, etc;

His criticism and portrayal of Trump also falls into the category of “Orange man bad,“ with the by now familiar name-calling. He adds to this by quoting “The Art Of The Deal,“ a book ghost written by Tony Schwartz.

It is difficult to find anything illuminating in regards to Trump’s character, barring the support of his children and friends of the family. After all of the negative articles that I’ve read (and openly ridiculed here on my blog) I’ve only come across three sources in regards to Trump’s personality that can be seen as plausible or informative. One is the video of Tony Schwartz in Oxford, another is the video interview with one of the women alleging that they had an affair, the other is a long article in The New Yorker written about his tv-show “The Apprentice.” What these three have in common is that they align and paint the sort of picture that would be credible considering Trump’s vast wealth and business accomplishments; all other critics are namely repeating the same words over and over without ever giving any reasons for why they are doing so…

That being said it is unlikely that anyone will care much for what Schwartz have to say for himself since Trump’s larger than life personality and star eclipses that of a journalist hired to write about another man’s accomplishments…

Trump’s magnitude is so immense that it is impossible to come across a media outlet not mentioning him (the publishing houses clearly see it as their mission to use any outlet to influence potential voters), impossible to come across anyone in the music industry who does not have an official opinion broadcasted on their social media (regardless of their size and influence), his very presence has driven his political adversaries to nothing but visible madness; it is not even possible to go to a random coffee-house in Cheltenham without overhearing the neighbouring table talk about Trump’s latest Tweets.

Such is his fame and such is his influence.  

He has made everyone reveal themselves and their true colours on an international scale.

Those who want: border security, a crack-down on gang-warfare, private guns, religion, jobs and a future for their families love the man and are his fans; those who hate him want: no borders, no jobs, no police, no private guns, no religion, and no children.

Yet those who oppose him do not really see this since all they chant is: “Orange man bad,“ they are fighting an unjust system presided over by a bigot – in their opinion.

His most devout fans burnt their Nike gear to show their contempt for “flag-disrespecter“ Colin Kaepernick. Meanwhile the political activism on the left increasingly resembles persecution with doxing and physical assaults a staple; it brings to mind “give us the man and we’ll find the crime.“

A most celebrated and respected investigative journalist referred to the spectacle by saying: “this is political war.“

It is also worth noting that liberals were terrified of a potential “military junta“ in the White House when Trump appointed retired Generals to certain positions. Once these characters were fired one by one, the very same people voiced their complaints, since they apparently wanted a military take-over if this take-over would stand opposed (even if just a little bit) to President Trump.

“… or, as the Kagans would later put it, “to intervene decisively in every critical region” of the world, “whether or not a visible threat exists there.” (p.213)

“… to ensure that no other power ever arose to challenge the United States and that no regional powers ever attained preeminence in their local theatres.” (p.214)

To conclude; 

There is a real danger of “state-worship“ both on the right and left side of politics. This is never in the interest of the people when contemplating the exploitative nature of the modern “state.“ There is also a danger of denial when people are clueless of past tensions between those who yearn for change and those who oppose this.

Right-wing people do have a tendency to greatly admire enforcement professions only to despise big-government and bureaucracy in the next sentence. I guess it is an admiration for being badass and for being patriotic. I certainly consider myself a fan of the military and others who keep us safe and know how to kick ass!

Ironically enough these enforcement professionals are in our times acting as agents of the very state that conservatives either loathe and/or doubt.

Those on the left side of politics meanwhile bemoans war-mongering from the right, while frequently calling for military interventions in the name of “saving humanity“ or “standing in solidarity“ with whomever. They greatly expand the state “for the greater good“ while simultaneously lamenting “power-abuse,“ “the patriarchy,“ and “hierarchies.“

It is immensely ironic that left-wing characters erect the very abuse time and time again that they criticise or see (whether legitimate or not) in already existing political structures. They do have a tendency of being very right in their analysis of what doesn’t work while failing spectacularly when enacting their remedy. Usually resulting in monumental losses in the millions. 

The use of language and grammar is an abuse of power in the mind of a true deconstructionist, yet the ideological children of these radical thinkers are the very ones who are forcing everyone in public academic settings to announce their pronouns and talk like fools.

On the other hand; conservatives regularly re-write and update their own history so that they will not be seen in an unflattering light by whatever modern standards. If you believed in maintaining the established order of your time and you lived in the American South, you would obviously have been pro-slavery, if you believed in maintaining the existing orders in Europe, you would obviously have been pro-Monarchy. If you believed in the captains of industry and this newly established elite you would have supported the suppression of workers, and so and so on.

Establishments and elites change.

I disagree with Corey Robin’s argument that violence is one of the pillars of the conservative mindset and would rather counter-argue that violence is at the heart of humanity as a whole.

Geneticists would obviously know more about the topic.

I take it as self-evident that most lust for power and that few would ever be able to resist the temptation of greatly expanding their spheres of influence if given the chance.

Inevitably this results in the infringement upon other people’s borders and rights to self-rule.

A right is only a right as long as humans decide to respect it, just like a law or a system is only operational as long as people decide to play along with it. The moment that people do not, it will simply cease to exist.

Political orders are living organisms which makes it ironic to be a conservative, unless ones definition of conservative aligns with mine; namely that conservatism means conserving any traces and tools of ones cultural heritage such as: texts, buildings, artefacts, music, practises, languages, etc; in addition to the protection of ones own population group from existential enemies both internal and external.

It would also make sense to include borders but this would not take into consideration our ancestors nomadic tendencies, which led them to move wherever they could find resources. Which grounds to be defended would be defined by the actual value to the tribe. This obviously includes farmland in these “modern“ times of ours.

Expansion due to necessity would also have to be included if concerned with the survival of ones population group, since mass evacuations are sometimes a necessity. You have to be flexible and willing to re-locate if your current territory becomes inhabitable.

Borders follow the tribe.

Traditionalism on the other hand does in my opinion mean that you consciously re-enact past patterns of behaviour, which is something that a great deal of conservatives would not be interested in doing.

In this day and age conservatism is largely seen as a financial model which means that nothing is ever really seen as worth “conserving“ if it gets in the way of the sanctity of “the free market,“ socially there may be a little sprinkle of religion, but this is largely absent from the Nations of Europe.

Lately I’ve been thinking that globalism must appeal to those who see all humans as replaceable cogs in the industrial like state system. If 10 Swedes die tomorrow it makes no difference since 10 Nigerians can be imported to take their place. It is however interesting to note that the argument is never really reversed because then it becomes imperialistic and racist. Overpopulation in Africa can be solved by Europeans not having any kids, in the eyes of a globalist it makes no difference at all if China all of a sudden is swapped demographically with India. We are all just cogs in the machine. This is the only way I can think of to explain their thinking.

It is worth noting however that if celestial beings create humans to worship them you cannot simply exchange them for other creatures while expecting a continuation of praise. This will probably come as a rude awakening to many in the years to come.

When reading this book it is informative to see that conservative critics do have a tendency historically to lament the inertia of the establishment while both fearing and admiring the vitality of revolutionaries.

Like biblical prophets they warn of a looming danger, but a danger nonetheless that seems inevitable.

“What is important is not what freedom I personally would like to exercise but what freedom some person may need in order to do things beneficial to society; this freedom we can assure to the unknown person only by giving it to all.” Hayek (p.159)

 

“How To Resist – Turn Protest To Power” by Matthew Bolton.

“… if you want change, you need power.” (p.50)

It is not how right you are but how much power you have that will determine whether or not you can achieve it.” (p.26)

Politics is indeed too important to be left to the politicians. So vote, always vote, but that’s the bare minimum. Your democracy needs you. Yes, you.” (pp.11-12)

This is a well-written, easy-to-read handbook, authored by a white-male-community-organiser-activist, championing and (partially) fighting for the rights of those who are not part of his own in-group; which can be a risky thing to do, regardless of who you are.

…the government did adopt the 20.000 target for Syrian refugees …” (p.130)

He works hard to establish unsustainable political alliances in order to obtain temporary political gain, forcing the establishment through people-power and the media to get specific results, while artificially keeping something together that cannot possibly last…

In other words: He is successful in reaching his objectives while simultaneously working against them, by supporting issues that can potentially undermine some of his efforts in the long run…

…the government announced the ‘National Living Wage’, which, although less than the real Living Wage, has brought significant pay rises to over 2 million people, including nearly 700.000 care workers, with some who were stuck on the minimum wage getting a 10 per cent increase.” (p.93)

The following month we won the first test case and four Syrian boys stuck in the Calais “jungle” travelled legally and safely to be reunited with their families in Britain.” (p.146)

I do believe that he has his heart in the right place however and that he is a true believer in his own values and whatever cause he sees as his core-concern.

The stories of damp and mould were shocking. Parents with eczema, kids missing school with respiratory problems and toad-stools growing in the bedrooms.” (p.153)

He operates within the set frames of our Nation States and the official rules of engagement offered to its citizens, which is probably why the political establishment has publicly and officially praised him … or maybe they just couldn’t avoid him…

Rather than cast blame on out-of-touch elites, the onus is on us to work out what we want, to get organised and to build the power in order to get it.” (p.50)

There is no greater heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”                Lord Acton

We are faced with a market culture that is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on advertising, telling us that our primary role in life is to be a consumer, and with a dominant political culture telling us that we are spectators in a game played out in Westminster and in TV studios.” (p.155)

It is an informative read that conservatives have to check out, even though those who are more traditionalist in nature will probably find the idea of Bolton’s activities un-appealing:

“Community organising was pioneered by the American Saul Alinsky and then further established through the work of Citizens UK’s sister organisation in the US, the Industrial Areas Foundation.”

… Saul Alinsky famously planned the first ever ‘shit-in’, where busloads of campaigners would take over all the toilets in Chicago’s O’Hare Airport for a day to bring the whole place to a standstill…” (p.119)

Bolton’s background is one of socio-economic movement, which has made him alert (through experience) of parallel realities, much like I described in this entry of mine: Europe & America’s Transformation Due To Migration – My Observations as A European Globetrotter.

He however, obviously perceives economics or the global capitalist system, as the number one culprit or catalyst for injustice, whereas I’ve previously stated that mass migration and street-level diversity, resulting in gangs and neighbourhoods divided over racial or ethnic lines are much to blame for instability. I also acknowledge that human nature in and of itself is a massive obstacle to peace. There are probably many who would argue that a good solid economy would sort out the problems as laid out by me, whereas I would highlight the importance of identity, culture, natural “clustering” and a sense of belonging…

On that note it is worth mentioning what Bolton writes concerning the Salvation Army and its start in England. I find this most interesting due to the current scandals involving “grooming gangs” in the UK; meaning packs of Arab and/or Muslim men, or individuals hailing from those territories, targeting ethnic English girls for sexual exploitation.

The founders of the Salvation Army were husband and wife William and Catherine Booth and one of the social injustices that angered them was the sexual exploitation of children, which was rife in the East End of London, where they were based.”

This audacious tactic caused huge public outcry and the Criminal Law Amendment Act raising the age of female sexual consent to sixteen was hurried through Parliament in 1885.

Once again; it is dangerous to champion those who are not from ones own “in-group,” (I’m guessing that there are many who aren’t quite sure what their in-group is in the Western world of today) in addition it is also worth to note that all Nations have internal problems, which is an argument that is both used to advocate for or against replacement/mass migration.

I do find the recent scandals surrounding pedophilia in our Western entertainment industry alarming but also informative as it brings to mind accusations of hypocrisy from other population groups who feel unfairly targeted when it comes to the frequency of child abuse. Maybe the only difference is how well certain groups can cover it up…

I’m guessing that the sexual exploitation mentioned and fought against by the Salvation Army was a case of poor children being exploited by those who were wealthier; so once again the example of one class targeting a “perceived” lower class. In the other example you see non-Muslims or Whites being targeted, probably under the excuse that we are “lesser” or worth less. This is sadly a common theme when observing and hearing of human behaviour regardless of the time or location…

Funny enough an in-group can be based on: faith, occupation, financial status, race, ethnicity, sports, brands, music style and the accompanying life-style, political ideology, the county or State you live in, etc; You can form a tribe or an in-group around anything, another example are biker gangs.

With that in mind it might be of interest to add that recently I’ve pondering (among a million other things), whether many of our modern problems can be blamed on the insistence of maintaining Nation States…

Religious liberty as advocated by the U.S.A., just to pick one example, can in theory work perfectly in a “tribal-reality,” but can potentially be disastrous within the frame-work of a Nation State since it automatically undermines whatever identity pillars that are needed in order to maintain such a structure and union.

If you are going to unify a territory, you obviously need certain unifying factors.

If tribalism is promoted however, it changes everything.

No more Nation States, just competing tribes and clans, all with their own perimeters, beliefs, and values.

Rather than having “global segregation” through the much worshipped (or vilified) Nation State and its borders, you would get more localised, tribal segregation, which is what can be observed anyway, when experiencing and witnessing the voluntary tribal division internally in the major cities of the U.S.A.

This phenomenon is also becoming increasingly visible in the so-called “New-Europe.”

It might be an idea to realise when one’s territory is shifting from being “civic-minded” and becoming increasingly “tribal,” since it will leave “civic-minded” characters extremely vulnerable if they do not adapt.

To use an easy example: when I was little people did not lock their front doors if they lived out in the country, you went to bed with your front door unlocked. In the English country you have relationships that are trust-based. If societies like that are introduced to raiding parties who take advantage of their naiveté then needless to say it will be a scenario of loss for your own trust-fixated-tribe.

It is also an idea to be aware when “the guillotines” are being brought out so that it doesn’t come as a surprise when they are lined up and ready, sadly it seems that those who are active politically are largely ignorant of the rage that they see from certain demographics and simply do not comprehend why people are so angry and upset. This level of detachment and genuine surprise says it all when it comes to the present state of affairs in the Western World…..

There are numerous people out there who simply do not know what they are doing or recognise the beast they are staring straight at.

Someone like Matthew Bolton understands rage and work to harness it for his own political purpose.

It is an interesting thing to note that socio-economic mobility has placed Matthew Bolton and myself on two opposite spectrums politically, even though we are united in a common awareness of issues and problems and would probably agree on many things.

One great example of impact is the 38 Degrees campaign in 2011 to stop the privatisation of UK woodlands, which involved 500.000 people signing their petition, 100.000 people emailing their MPs, and a crowdfunded poll that demonstrated wider public opposition. This rapid mobilisation of such large numbers scared the government off and plans to sell the forests were scrapped.” (p.127)

The issue is serious: an estimated 40.000 early deaths in the UK per year are linked to dangerously high NO2 levels.” (pp.121-122)

This quote in particular is without a doubt a favourite of mine, since it describes the scenario of socio-economic diversity, and the absolute ignorance of it, perfectly:

… but the gap between that bubble of privilege and the reality of south London started to grate on me. As a teenager, I was mugged in my neighbourhood twice, at knifepoint; I was punched in the face several times, and I was violently carjacked. I don’t want to make it sound worse than it was, but those things did happen and my brother and I were always aware in the back of our minds that kids in our area did get stabbed. But my school just seemed so pleased with itself, and it had nothing to say about any of those issues happening outside. One morning, the head actually started an assembly with: ‘As I sit back in my chair and hear the crack of willow on leather [cricket], I think how wonderful it is to live in Dulwich…” (pp.20-21)

Yet there is much to learn, just take a look at this:

“… Rosa Parks and Abdul Durrant were both trained in campaigning. Both were leaders in social change organisations. Their acts were not spontaneous acts of individual courage.” (p.14)

That quote is of utmost importance.

In our societies we constantly highlight the power of the “individual,” especially highlighting successful so-called lone-wolf activists such as Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr.

The face of a movement however, isn’t necessarily the brain of said movement….

The Montgomery NAACP had been  planning a bus boycott for at least a year and had been looking for the right person to be a test case to take to the courts. There had already been at least three other black passengers that year who had refused to give up their seats, but in those cases there weren’t the right ingredients for the strategy to catch light. With Rosa, however, it did.”

After reading these lines though, I’m guessing that this false image of political individualism is promoted in order for peoples’ agitation to fail! You need a plan and you need people. In other words: you need to get organised. 

By selling a false narrative of successful political individualist agitation in conjunction with “free-speech,” especially in light of today’s “surveillance-state,” I assume that you can catch and uproot potential grassroots movements in their infancy, before people realise that organisation is key.

The organising culture aims to turn that individual despair and frustration into collective anger and power for change.” (p.153)

Finding common self-interest can move people over the barriers of prejudice into coalition.” (p.44)

…it is politicians and celebrities who are portrayed as the significant political actors. Ordinary people tend to be left to the role of spectators – maybe tweeting a view or featuring in a five-second vox pop, but mainly just faces in a crowd.” (p.86)

It should not be the goal of any Nation or movement to be a loose Nation or movement of atomised individuals, if they wish to succeed.

You need strong units of people; something that can be accomplished by individuals living on top of one another, just to pick one example.

If a number of individuals are forced to live in a small living space, especially if the resources are limited, it will either make or break the unit. 

This once again flies in the face of the more modern theories of “individual atomisation.”

Just because collectivism fails on a Federal, Nation-State level, doesn’t mean that it will be disastrous on a “unit-level” or “family-level.” In fact in this scenario it might flourish substantially, getting out the best in people, creating an environment of: all for one, one for all!

The fact that people on the right spectrum of politics are so averse towards the idea of “collectivism” puts right-wing individuals in a position where they are doomed to lose against those who are well-organised across multiple socio-economic plateaus, unless this trend changes of course.

…disempowerment feeds feelings of distrust, apathy and blame, the conditions needed for a divisive populism to spread. The Iron Rule, by contrast, requires us to make people the authors of the change they want, which then breeds confidence, agency and collaboration between people.” (p.140)

A very revealing section in Bolton’s book can be found on page 147, where he writes this:

… the reason cited by people coming to food banks are:

  1. Benefit delays or benefit changes (40 per cent)
  2. Low income (23 per cent)
  3. Debt (7 per cent)
  4. Unemployment (5 percent)

Why is this of particular interest?

Because there is this prevailing myth out there that as long as you work hard you will be rewarded accordingly…

If you depend on the charity of others or depend on benefit programs then this must undoubtedly be evidence of your own laziness, according to this narrative.

In a number of cases this couldn’t be further from the truth and it might be easier to get stuck “in the system” than a lot of people imagine.

Yet it is a problem that has to be acknowledged that the expenses of a Government are many. Its income is based on taxes and if one area is to be prioritised then something else will have to be sacrificed….

… our campaign for a Living Wage moved a Conservative government to make the biggest increase to the legal minimum wage since it was introduced in 1997.” (p.118)

It would be much better if family values could be re-introduced in the Western world, (especially in Northern Europe) as it would make more sense if family-members looked after their own, rather than lumping troublesome relatives unto the State! It would also be beneficial to re-focus people on the Christian value system, so that individuals and families could open up their hearts to charitable participation, rather than falling into apathy, since “the system” will handle whatever injustice that is out there….

By promoting a value-system that emphasises “good works” a Nation or Nation State stand to gain massively!

If we think of some of the great institutions we benefit from today – hospitals, schools, housing associations, trade unions and charities – these were often developed in, or sponsored by, local churches.” (p.10)

I think an unnecessary burden and load is placed on a system that must surely collapse in the end, when looking at various European Nation States today.

An initiative such as the NHS for example, should in theory work if individuals take more personal responsibility; danger looms when people do not and costs are added due to bad lifestyle choices, who’s long-term effects could have been avoided altogether or at least minimised!

Likewise when looking at “projects” and their seemingly random placement over in the asphalt-jungles of the U.S.A. there is no doubt in my mind that those buildings have been spread around in an effort to avoid “no-go-zones.” I also assume that the theory behind allowing kids from these projects into “magnet schools,” etc; is to enable upward mobility. Sadly the results are much less glamorous, but I can certainly see and understand how people can support and propose something like this since it works in theory and probably looks quite good on paper.

But there are many things that work exceptionally well … in theory…..

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.” ARCHBISHOP CAMARA

Bolton’s initiatives do seem genuinely well-intended though and might temporarily positively affect natives in Europe … simply by chance.

Every night he cleaned the offices of Sir John Bond, who earned £2 million a year … ‘Sir John, we work in the same office but we live in different worlds. Let me tell you what it’s like to work on £4.50 per hour and bring up six children.” (p.13)

But those individuals who advocate for better wages, have a tendency to advocate for more immigrants and cultural enrichment as well … not to forget that companies tend to outsmart efforts intended to increase wages so that their own bottom line isn’t affected negatively. Which is something I came across years (or months ago), when a petition was being passed around (which I shared here on my Blog) describing how workers had simply lost out on holidays, benefits and sick-days, due to an enforced wage-increase in the UK….

I also saw an online post not that long ago about a company in the U.S.A simply opting for “robots” when their human workers wanted better payment…

Yet another example is the outsourcing of labour to Asia and economists arguing that workers in the West either have to let go of their privileges or see their jobs lost to cheaper labour elsewhere….

In other words; there are many excuses and reasons that are cited when hordes of people find themselves out of work or find themselves forced to accept terms that are downright horrible.

I don’t intend to sound pessimistic, but it is an annoying and interesting trend to observe, especially if exposed to individuals who are worried that their town might turn into a Ghost-town due to China and the ever looming dark cloud of “outsourcing.”

Even though the media doesn’t seem too keen on reporting on it; there might be a reason as to why American workers cry of joy when their jobs are brought back due to the trade-policies of the current U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

One can only hope that the threat of Globalisation will be diminished over here in Europe as well.

Please justify to me why so many Norwegian and English goods are made in Asia?

Please explain to me why our heritage is outsourced, when our traditional dresses are manufactured by Chinese hands?

Likewise when you look at the Global network of food-trade, it is ridiculous to depend on these intricate systems, as it doesn’t take much thinking to realise that it is all unsustainable in the end!

If a change is not brought to us through politics, then climate change will surely rock our boats; we all need to re-learn how to hunt and grow our own crops, in addition to making our own clothes, etc;

We have to sever our global dependency in order to re-gain our National independence.

We have probably never been this vulnerable ever before.

Learn to hunt if you have the funds and/or learn how to grow your own food! 

Back to Mr. Bolton…

….his book is both a worrying and an inspiring read. I guess I and those who agree with my values, ought to be happy that this guy decided to release a book available to us all, so that those who disagree with him can learn from him!

It could be an idea to team up with individuals like him and learn from his organisation if worried and concerned about MicroPlastics in our drinking water, just to pick one example. Learning organisational skills and how to mobilise people must surely be a plus, regardless of where one can acquire this skill!

… ‘the action is in the reaction’ encourages the weaker side to provoke some kind of overreaction that can be used to strengthen their campaign or undermine the authority.” (p.79)

In fact, regardless of how vilified “community organising” might be on the right-side of politics, you might find yourself in a situation one day where a guy like Bolton will be the one who’ll help you out of your unfortunate predicament!

It is always important to remember that the capitalist system is an “organic” one where you can easily be a King one day and a pauper the next! This is such an uncomfortable thought that I guess that many would prefer to look another way; rather than reflecting on their own vulnerability!

…when it’s the less powerful side trying to influence and hold accountable the more powerful side, picking the right time for the action is key. For publicly listed companies the AGM is a good time, … For politicians, the weeks before elections are the time when they are most actively looking for votes and keen to make public appearances.” (p.82)

When writing about the art of organising; Bolton acknowledges in his book that members of the LGBTQP movement were reluctant to team up with Muslims to push for “hate-crime-enforcement” since LGBTQP advocates had been harassed by Anti-Gay Muslims in the past; yet Bolton through his own community organising was capable of bringing these two groups together, in order to push the authorities on broadening “hate-crime-initiatives.”

Bolton describes how he manages the art of getting people who hate one another to come together in order to push politicians through coordinated efforts; also involving the press.

The way to do this is to find an emotional, personal, grievance that can unite these groups.

Let’s say that you are an African who has experienced “cultural enrichment” and I also happen to have experienced something of the sort. Then we will have that one thing in common that we’ve both been violated and that we’ve both experienced fear at the hand of the exact same group. Then that becomes what unites us, until the enemy or the issue has been sorted out. Which is a tiny detail that Bolton forgets to mention, selling the impression that these alliances become permanent, like a step towards an ever improving reality for humanity that can only grow and become better….

Bolton then goes on to describe how the issue with Western people is that we are indoctrinated into discussing and analysing broad problems, without ever really bothering to break things into tangible issues that can be purposefully worked towards….

We are therefore distracted and kept away from productive action, since we think, talk and analyse ourselves into intellectual oblivion.

Yet he writes that it can be wise to use vague and lofty words to attract those who want to “save the world,” and once you get them and have their attention, divide problems into smaller goals that are clearly expressed and defined.

So in other words…

….lure people in with “fog-talk,” then once you have them, introduce them to the real operation that they can be used for….

Building power through relationships and turning problems into issues together helps people develop political skills and gets us ready for effective action.” (p.76)

What is the grand-strategy I wonder? It seems to me that Bolton is acting on one impulse: a desire to help people, regardless of who they are. It doesn’t matter if he helps and aids the mass-importation of “New-Europeans,” if he gets citizenship for illegals, or if he helps the natural world through environmental policies.

He must obviously think in a very non-ethnocentric global fashion.

Bolton funny enough acknowledges that him and his activist group had to emotionally manipulate their very own members and people, in order to gain support for a citizen led initiative, where the goal was to secure full citizenship for illegal, undocumented immigrants in the UK.

Since the members of his own progressive group were instinctively opposed to the idea, they had to get hold of real illegals to come and share their own personal stories, in order to persuade progressive activists that this was a good thing to support. This undoubtedly displays how thin this solidarity and advocacy truly is … 

After reading that particular section there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of Bolton’s efforts will be unravelled as cultural and demographic tensions escalate all over Europe.

In fact, it very well might be the most important passage in Bolton’s book…

There is no doubt in my mind though that his empathy is sincere, it rather seems like he is directing these feelings in all sorts of directions, due to maybe some sort of survivors guilt on his part…

He laments in his book that he is a white-male as if though this makes him automatically “guilty” due to alleged white-male-priviledge …

…His anger radiates from the pages that he has authored, which is kind of funny. Who knows how the Western world would have looked like today, if men like him directed this rage in a patriotic, protective fashion.

In February 2016, a refugee family arrived with an eleven-month-old baby who needed urgent medical attention, which would never have been possible in the camps where the family had been stuck.” (p.130)

There are lots of English babies who die due to the incompetence of doctors and medical staff, I’ve signed and shared some of these horrifying petitions that have been passed around the internet. In addition you also have those who never see the light of day due to abortion. Of course I don’t mean to be insensitive in any kind of way; but if you don’t even prioritise your own babies, then it is quite obvious that your population group is destined for failure.

If Bolton is a patriot he will surely be a champion for the children of England?

If he had to choose: whose children would he rather save?

And most importantly: what would you do?

IMG_6611

 

President Trump & Imprisoned Soldiers In The U.S.A.

Ever since I heard about that U.S. soldiers can be imprisoned by their own government if they do their job I’ve been mortified! The stories are horrendous. I’ve been sending words of support to these forgotten fighters – which is something that you can do as well – just search for United American Patriots! They are a non-for profit who work to give these men legal help.

President Donald J.Trump tweeted this today which is really great:

I hope that he will look into all the other fighters who have also been wronged and targeted by their own government (that they are fighting for)!

Christmas might come early this year for warriors ignored by Obama & Bush! One can hope! ❤

https://thecommanderinchief.blog/2018/10/04/united-american-patriots-the-royal-british-legion/

 

 

 

Censorship, Freedom & Sovereignty In “Europe.”

All of a sudden, out of nowhere, like a lightening bolt out of the blue, I couldn’t read certain news sites anymore since they had been “blocked by the EU.”

This literally happened over-night.

I took some screenshots of it, since I was planning to write about how the European territory is becoming increasingly like some “Soviet-spin-off.”

living in the EU

It is an interesting thing to experience since nobody really refers to themselves as “European” nor do anyone refer to their own territory as part of “Europe.”

“This is the U.K., Europe equals everyone else.”

“This is Scandinavia, Europe (again) equals everyone else.”

Yet the E.U. has the power to decide what ought to be accessed and read by everyone who lives under their jurisdiction, which certainly raises the question of national sovereignty….

It is also of interest since we learn about the Soviet Union in school and how horrible it was that “people were spied on,” that there was “limited freedom of speech,” that “information was being controlled,” etc;

In our “Western territories” we have “freedom of speech” as one of our “golden values,” which is of interest when considering that there are other territories on this planet who have no freedom of speech at all officially, which sounds horrid, but at least give people clearer guide-lines. Maybe “freedom of speech” is an illusion to crack down on dissenters? It can certainly be used that way I’m sure … you think you have freedom of speech, but oooops, apparently you do not.

In the same spirit I was going to write about the social media site GAB, that was all of a sudden shut down and mysteriously removed. Just like the E.U. censorship, that too happened remarkably quickly. The reason given was that the Synagogue-shooter over in the U.S.A. had a profile on their site. For some strange unexplainable reason though, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube still stand, despite being linked to Islamic terrorists, drug cartels, ethnic cleansing and major data leaks. The list of extremist (and unethical) behaviour goes on, which naturally will make one wonder: what sort of extremism is considered less extreme or more acceptable than others? A good question indeed….

GAB 1

I myself, have been trying to watch some of Donald J. Trump’s rally speeches via YouTube, but whenever I’ve tried to check out what he is actually doing and saying at his events, “the spinning wheel of doom” appears out of nowhere and I’m literally prevented from watching. If I manage to stream a speech, it doesn’t take long before everything “hangs” which means that I have to refresh my window indefinitely, since the problem doesn’t go away … mysteriously enough….

Yesterday I finally managed to watch my first rally, courtesy of my mother.

The energy level and the optimism could be felt all the way from America. It was a patriotic, enthusiastic speech that energised the huge crowd present.

There was nothing divisive, nothing hateful, nothing loathsome.

Since I’ve lived in the U.S. on several occasions I’ve seen for myself the derelict state of their country, it makes me happy to see that there is an effort in place to get America back on its feet. We need the same drive and optimism over here in “Europe” for sure; a country that looses faith in itself is a country that will cease to exist.

CENSORSHIP EU

United American Patriots & The Royal British Legion.

An online petition was being passed around a while back about an imprisoned American soldier, wronged by his own government. This evening I received a mass email describing another horrifying case. This is the website of an organisation called:  United American Patriots   They help forgotten and betrayed US fighters.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there are similar cases over here in European countries as well; if that’s the case then it’s well hidden, which would make sense considering that the Norwegian government, just to pick one example, has repeatedly denied in the past that Norway is at war, even though we have veterans and have suffered casualties due to contributing to America’s numerous war efforts around the world…..Yet we are apparently not fighting anyone and have officially no enemies anywhere…..Hopefully the current administration have stopped the official denial, because how can you aid veterans who officially do not exist?

I’ll paste in the email I received from UAP below. What truly stood out to me was the bit about the Afghan who received a US Citizenship; read the whole thing. It’s freaky to say the least. This is the sort of injustice you may risk by enlisting in the U.S.A.:

Dear Berit,

I am so scared for my son’s life that I’m writing you this e-mail today, even though we’ve never met.

My name is Renee Myers and my son is Sgt. Derrick Miller of the Maryland National Guard.

Derrick is the kind of man every mother wants her son to grow up to be – strong, kind and loyal. He’s a proud daddy who adores his two daughters – this photo is one of my favorites of him holding his oldest daughter, Karina.

But what I love the most about my son is that he felt it was his duty as an American to join the National Guard. In fact, he volunteered for two of his three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, I wish I could go back in time and tell him not to…

Because for volunteering to defend our nation, Derrick has been sentenced to life in prison for doing exactly what the Army trained him to do!

You see, while on a combat mission in September of 2010, Derrick watched an Afghan national walk through his unit’s defense perimeter. The same man had been detained the day before under suspicion of driving insurgents to a nearby combat firefight.

So to be safe, Derrick and another U.S. Soldier took him into custody for questioning with an Afghan interpreter.

Derrick asked the man why he was within the American defense perimeter. First, the man claimed to be an electrician responding to a downed power line. Then he claimed to be there to fix a water pump. Either way, he had no tools with him.

The Afghan grew more and more agitated as Derrick continued asking questions. Suddenly, he grabbed for Derrick’s weapon.

Derrick reacted immediately – firing and killing the suspect.

Just days after the incident, Derrick was arrested and charged with “premeditated murder” of the Afghan insurgent!

For eight terrible months, we waited for the trial that would finally set the record straight and bring Derrick home to us. After all, there were witnesses who saw the whole incident and would testify on his behalf.

But instead, our government turned its back on Derrick – a decorated U.S. Soldier – to appease Afghanistan officials.

Remember, another Soldier had witnessed the interrogation and confirmed Derrick’s account. But he changed his story after the government threatened to charge him with accessory to murder.

The other witness was the Afghan translator. And in exchange for testifying against Derrick, he was granted U.S. citizenship.

Yes, our government brought him here to the U.S. and paid for him to live in an on-base hotel for six months with food, a personal van, and a $630 per month allowance – all provided at taxpayer expense!

Worst of all, the Army destroyed every bit of forensic evidence that could have proved Derrick was acting in self-defense. There were no photos. No autopsy. Nothing.

But I still believed the government would do the right thing. Instead, I held hands with my husband and Derrick’s wife, Katherine, and listened in shock as Derrick was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

His feet were shackled, his hands cuffed to a leather belt around his waist, and, just like that, my only child was taken from me.

Since then, the world has simply fallen apart for his precious family.

The military immediately stopped Derrick’s paychecks. Derrick’s wife and my husband and I had pooled together all our money to hire a civilian attorney to represent Derrick. It cost $50,000 – every cent we had.

Now, with no money in the bank, his wife couldn’t pay their mortgage, utilities, car payment, or Derrick’s student loans.

Derrick had always worked two jobs so his wife could stay home after their babies were born. Now she can’t. The girls are so little and they don’t understand. They ask her over and over again, “Why can’t Daddy come home?”

They wake up at night and cry for him. And honestly, sometimes so do I.

Berit, I can’t bear the thought of the girls growing up without their dad. Or Derrick not being able to scoop them up in his arms before they’re grown. But we have only one hope left now…

You see, we got a phone call from United American Patriots (UAP), an organization that helps Service Members who have been unfairly indicted for their split-second actions in combat.

The good folks at UAP know firsthand that you can’t send U.S. Soldiers into terrorist combat zones and second-guess their actions from a desk in Washington. And their support has been instrumental in getting Derrick to this point.

But even though the end is in sight, UAP must raise money to cover hours of legal research, expert witnesses, and legal motions throughout this parole process. UAP is a non-profit organization, which means they don’t receive any funding from the federal government – only private donations from patriotic Americans.

It also means that I’m going to take a deep breath and ask you one of the hardest questions I’ve ever asked another person:

Can you help me fight to free my son by making a donation of $35, $50, $100 or more to UAP?

Your gift is tax-deductible. And it will help us pay for Derrick’s parole hearings – and help other innocent Service Members who have been unfairly charged, too.

The federal government has already spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to convict Derrick and grant U.S. citizenship to the Afghan who testified against him.

But I must rely on the generous hearts of people like you to save my son.

That’s why I’m writing you today – to do what I can as the mother of a U.S. Soldier to find good-hearted people out there who care about defending our nation’s troops.

Our attorney is going above and beyond the call of duty to fight for Derrick. But the parole process is unpredictable and will cost us at least $30,000. It’s money we simply don’t have.

Can you please help UAP fund this legal battle and bring Derrick home to us?

Your $35 contribution could be the difference between letting my son rot in prison for another decade for a “crime” he didn’t commit… or bringing him home to me and his girls where he belongs right away!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for any help you can send to UAP today.

Yours truly,
Mrs. Renee Myers

P.S. As a member of the National Guard who volunteered for two of his three tours of duty, my son has sacrificed so much for our country. Yet in return, our government has taken away his family and his freedom! Right now Derrick desperately needs to know that he hasn’t been forgotten! Thank you for whatever amount you can send today to give him hope and to help bring him home!

This is a very famous organisation here in the U.K. that supports British veterans: