Invisible Super
The wall separating Germany
What is, cannot be
Jul 24th
“You racist bastard!” said once a stand-up comedian named Jeff Dunham in the form of a terrorist puppet called Achmed.
Whereas immigration once was a surplus for the population, bringing knowledge and manpower, it is now the largest disgrace a nation faces. These “other” people, with their different cultures, alternative ways of thinking and behaving, think they can move to a country, just like that, and settle to live there, taking advantage of the country’s resources and welfare.
When countries couldn’t afford to teach these additions to the population the primary language, making the immigrants outcasts of the society, misunderstood and discriminated, the immigrants, those who were desperate and destructive enough, turned to the underground, illegal activities and so forth. This did not at all help their situation, but make it worse, giving an overall image of people from a certain culture to be more crime-prone than others, further undermining their chances to fit into society.
This again, was used by politicians and other pseudo-intellectuals to advocate for lesser immigration and harder control. What people failed to realise was that the argument is an argument from ignorance, building on the fact that, because the situation was handled badly from the beginning, and gave negative More >
Political Supremacy
Jul 21st
It should come as no surprise that those who make decisions in a country are politicians. As little should the surprise be that these people come from across society, they are not a homogeneous Anybody is allowed to become a politician, it does not require any particular skill.
In the meantime, it is said that philosophers make bad politicians. While philosophers have thoughts and ideas, theories and hypotheses, politicians have opinions. This is why anybody can become a politician. All it requires is that you have got opinions. Politics do not require your opinions to be logical, rational or in any other way sane. As long as you’ve got an opinion, in you go.
However charming the idea seem that anybody will make a politician, the idea itself is in fact rather flawed. A state has nothing to gain from a politician whose opinions are based on fairytales and whose proposals seek to ruin everything. One might argue that the effects still may yield positive result, however, that is not the point here. It is not sane to have people argue for their opinion when their opinion is based on vast misunderstandings and lack of knowledge. This is generally how bad decisions More >
Terrorism
Jul 10th
- Turning inside out the use of the word ‘terrorist’. Associating ourselves with it only to expose it for the overused buzzword of accusatory filth that it is. We are not terrorist in the conventional sense of the word, but terrorists against the passing of illogical legislation that inhibits the rights of citizens worldwide. In this sense we are freedom fighters, united not under one god, but under the equal rights of men and women on a global scale.
The quote says it all. Also, source.
How to successfully a system
Jun 29th
Realising that the current state of society is an improvisation hastily put together because the initial idea for the system was not perfect
Seeing how all current ideologies falsely assume that the system will be coherent
Assuming the logical solution then to be a system which incorporates the struggle between other systems
Concluding that the best system to do so is one with freedom, and with minimal control
——————————
Capitalism assumes there to be no unions, as well as no abusive employers. This way it would work flawlessly.
Democracy assumes all citizens to take interest in politics and actively take part of the decision-making. If people did this, democracy would work better.
Communism, or rather, Planned Economy, assumes nobody opposes and everybody plays along. That way it would work, if the planning was successful and nobody tried to challenge the system.
Anarchism assumes everybody to be willing to cooperate and that each individual is interested in forming the system, as well as respecting everybody else. This would work if people weren’t used to the current way of thinking, about competing as in concurrence, as well as being used to having a state which governs.
——————————
Technically, it is up to the citizen themselves what system they want to follow, be More >
Bullshit and other ideologies
May 8th
The bottom-line in today’s society is that security and safety are important, while liberty can be limited in order to make crime-fighting more effective.
The problem with this is that the arguments for it are rather rational – Yes, since all citizen have the right to privacy, criminals can hind behind these rights as well. Here is usually where the “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear”-argument comes in. Which is completely the opposite to reality. For if a society is turned into such a society where the state knows even the smallest of your mistakes and will punish you for it (since you have done “something” wrong, you will logically have to fear as well), that my friends, is a police state.
Ergo a society where the state wants to be able to see behind your wall of integrity, is a police state. If, however, they would not punish for smaller crimes, consciously, a fault in the system would appear, and I can assure you they would not hesitate to fix it.
The very idea of fighting crime is, in itself, dangerous. If everybody has to be checked, everybody is a potential thief, murderer or terrorist. Of course, it More >
Dear Censilia Malmström,
Apr 3rd
I am now going to take your bait and say something generally not accepted, or rather, expose myself to more of your emotional arguments, by questioning your values.
In her letter to the editor (in swedish), she states, among other things, the following:
“Second, there are unfortunately huge amounts of strong images available. If we do not act, we risk that people visiting uncontrolled [sic!] web sites will regard viewing such images as normal and acceptable.”
Credits to ChrisK for the translation.
This whole argument is based upon the fear of changed values. She expresses directly her fear of her values becoming a thing of the past, a fear of a new society where paedophilia is accepted. The problem I have with this, partially due to excessive studying of philosophy, is how her opinion is relative to the existing values. According to her, the mere existence of such images on the web, is enough to turn everybody into thinking it is okay. Now, if that would be possible, I am quite certain there would be no reason to object. Let me explain: If indeed the explicit images would be enough to turn everybody into accepting paedophilia, it would become okay, and thus objectors would be irrelevant. More >
Technology and its weaknesses
Feb 16th
RFID chips seem to be rather strongly marketed by the industry, whereas they have also created a fear of totalitarianism, with various claims of it being the plan by the men behind the curtain.
It is rather self-evident that there are certain risks with putting your whole life on a single chip. One of the fears I’ve read about is the Government or somebody else turning off your chip, leaving you without money, ID or anything which would be required in order to live. This would indeed be devastating for a person, whatever the reasons might be.
In short, this whole technology relies on that the masters are good and respects people to live their lives. The fears, again, claim the masters are not good, but evil, and will seek to destroy opposition, much like we see in totalitarian and dictatorial countries.
It is easy to fall into this fear and reject the whole concept of RFID chips. The idea, though, that money would be available only on a chip, is rather intriguing. This would, after a while, make money only electronic, giving a whole new perspective on money. When money become mere numbers on an account, as opposed to physical money, it More >
The Party System
Feb 15th
No, I am afraid this is not an analysis of your average Friday night, but rather the political party system.
To begin with, in order to get into politics, the common way to do so is by joining a party. This, because the parties already are organised and have their share of both the Parliament and media. So in other words, you have to first go through their internal party system, and then you get to use their goodies and that way take you forward to the rest of politics.
Because the current situation with the parties is inevitable, I cannot simply ignore it, although I for the moment is not seeking to join any party, because of reasons I will state later. However, this does not mean I would be positive to the system, I am only playing its game because I have to.
Now, what a party is, is a political organisation with a pre-set set of ideas and opinions. Joining a right-wing party and proposing left-wing ideas is simply not going to work, as the brief idea with parties is that people with the same opinions should be joined together and that way have a better way to influence politics. More >
2010
Dec 20th
With 11 days 23 hours 58 minutes and 1 second at the time of writing until a new year and a new decade begins, it would be time to make some statements.
In the current decade, which is running out, we have experienced a sophistication of the technologies developed in the ’90s, and our computers has got a lot better. With this, though, has come a conservatism, not looking too kindly on what is going on on our beloved Internetz. We have seen this through the numerous strikes which has been taken against different niches of the Internet, such as the more violent fight against piracy, as well as certain legislations which hurt our freedoms on the Internet. With more and more people having access to the Internet, and more and more activity, to some extent replacing that old afk/irl one, it is more or less inevitable that it also would get more attention.
What the Internet has given us is a tool for people to gain power, without going through the monetary or political system. We, on the Internet, can select what we want to watch and read, we can communicate with each other in a much more affordable way than More >
A philosophy of time
Nov 15th
Time, in common language the description of the 4th dimension, is something required for our daily lives. We must hold a basic understanding of time, in order to use future or past tense when composing sentences. As with most things, this is not actively recognized, as it is not necessary for our every day use.
Nonetheless, time is used, not only as a measurement between what happened, the now, and what will happen, but also for transitions. For instance, every living thing is first born, then grows up, and is bound to at some point, die. This is a way of using our perception of time to describe how the state of something may change.
What we use to help recall the past is memory. In my previous post I gave a brief explanation on memory and how it might not be a reliable tool. However, to actually understand that there is a past, we need memory to tell us what has happened. Without memory, we would not know of the past, and thus it would make it difficult to perceive time.
Without a past, the future would be questioned, too. For without experience, although experience could be said to exist without memory, More >
