Here are some thoughts. And maybe fun to see when folks are having thoughts. ------------------ 4/3/2018 Tajik lies saying #conspiracy theories#. T says SL attacks all the groups T lists, and that SL says they not only have same opinions they also conspire against national security. Simultaneously, T is saying those groups are allied with T, so implying that her opinion is thus shared by all off them. T simultaneously is accusing SL of using fascist type accusation by accusing AP of conspiracy, which actually SL did not do---actually T is inventing accusation. T thus encourages violence vs SL, as vs fascism. T basically tries to link the other groups to herself and her own agenda. T wants a conspiracy. T in effect says that since we all are accused of conspiring, we may just as well conspire. Who actually does T represent? What does T want? Who replaces Giske? Maybe T is sinister, or maybe T is like a naughty devious child who thinks she is too clever to get caught. ----------------- 2:55 PM 4/3/2018 AP could have foreseen that SL would try to protect vs returning jihadists, so AP opposed that so as to oppose SL, and get her to strongly fight back, when AP could cry foul. But the question remains, how to protect national security. --- 9:12 PM 4/3/2018 Tajik presumes to instruct us all how to behave. But how does T think? Can T distinguish between men who will help and men who will arm? Does T care? Or is politeness more important to T than security of norwegians? Some foreign young men may think of scandinavians as ancient vikings and imitate them. Some refugees may resent norwegian wealth. Some may be religious zealots. And some norwegians have not studied the history of invasions. And what will norway do when there are 12,000,000,000 people? What does T want? .................... 9:29 PM 4/3/2018 Sylvi Listhaug facebook bit was not said in storting. We who support SL have a right to her opinions in the social media. Indeed, everyone is obligated/obliged to fully participate in discussion of important political issues. SL by posting in FB and asking if we agree is doing what too few politicians actually do---SL asks our opinions! Unless politicians feel safe in confronting controversial issues we have the blind leading the blind. When unpleasant concerns are politely ignored they turn into cancers. To pass the buck to courts to handle returning jihadis is irresponsible. Courts cannot do what law-makers do not instruct. What would a case at law consist in when trying a returning jihadist? What could he be guilty of? If guilty, what punishment? What principle/principles justify bringing him to court? Is joining an enemy army considered treason? What warnings in the law should have been in place years ago to clarify the issue, so a defense now could not be that the law is post-facto? Indeed, are there such laws yet??! What are other nations doing? 10:07 PM 4/3/2018 A special complication is that whether or not Norway has declared war vs IS, IS has declared war vs everyone, so to speak---IS is actually still continuing as military enemy...returning members of IS are not returning after a war, they are returning while the war continues, and likely will continue for many years. Are they sabotage agents? Why did he join IS? Or, maybe he simply wanted to bring down Assad, a tyrant opposed by NATO. Or maybe he has psychological problems which might fester and which caused him to leave to express resentment vs western society---what can law do? Is he a mole? Why a judge? Why not psychologists? But both are fallible, as seen in the Breiviik case. By the way, of course a benefit to norway of the IS is that it reveals the latent nuttiness of some people, who otherwise might have gone unnoticed until too late, so they can be properly dealt with. The presence of dangerous men is obvious. -------------- 10:35 PM 4/3/2018 The very idea of politicians being hampered in communicating is dangerous. A compulsion to be polite is a menace. The truth is often distressing. Too bad it often takes decades before it can be confronted, and only by historians, when it is too late to prevent disaster, and conveniently too late to behave responsibly. Insight does not limit itself to journalists or minor politicians---a norwegian justice minister seeing a danger must not be prevented from sounding an alarm. To say, well it is not becoming in a justice minister to be rude, is suicidal. Who would you permit to say a dike has burst? But, after all, so what if AP cares more about the rights of returning jihadists than about norwegian security---how much more? And, of course, why? What is AP so upset for? Need i analyze that in detail? Ah well, there are examples in history when patriots were indeed willing to sacrifice security for a principle of human rights---if AP is so willing, that is not unpatriotic. The suggestion by SL is quite reasonable, rather like asking siblings if mommy should be letting daddy take them base-jumping. Indeed, in USA history, we now, after the event, safely, criticize the treatment of american-japanese during WW2, as wrongly caring less about their rights than about USA security. During the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, some americans (The Lincoln Brigade) went to fight against the Fascists. When they returned, after that war, as i recall, they were not treated badly---but i guess if they had fought for the Fascists that might have been different. Why didnt AP respond to SL by saying, lets examine the facts. Maybe because AP cares more about winning in parliament than about national security. --------------------- 11:35 PM 4/3/2018 Hopefully, FrP and Hoyre will moderate some of its policies in normal domestic politics so as to allow many who are distressed by the immature conduct of the Left parties to strengthen the Right. -------------- 1:18 AM 4/4/2018 Altho FrP and Hoyre may benefit generally from the current confrontation, Listhaug would be wise to neither be cocky nor play timid. A frequent cause of ultimate failure is over-confidence after surviving a challenge. Indeed, avoid smugness due to a paradoxical tactical victory---from my layman perspective, it is entirely possible that the entire range of likely results of the FB bit were foreseen by the SL team, and prepared for, including how to exploit advantages. As in chess, one hopes that the other fellow will make a mistake---but one must see the whole board so as to make sure what one thought a mistake is not a trap. I used to assume all this sort of thinking is SOP, standard operating procedure, for you big boys, but over the decades i have been appalled by the failings of leaders. Maybe there is a dangerous momentum, post-victory---and perhaps the other guy banks on that. ------------- 5:49 AM 4/4/2018 Audience is integral in communication. Norway being a constitutional monarchy functioning as a republic, how do politicians reflect the intentions/thoughts of the populace? Generally, we have the mass media to inform everyone and to receive feedback---but that is really a one-way street...the conversation is delimitted by the editors, who are employed by the publishers. We do not hear much about orangutans on news reports. So, as in a republic there is by definition a firewall between the masses and the government, a problem of communication exists, which is addressed variously in different cultures/systems. Besides #lobbying# there is the direct letter-writing by concerned citizens. The norwegian voting booth offers a choice of parties, a small card for each, with a list of names, and voters can make alterations, but basically one votes the party---so, when one wants to write, whom does one address? But, in recent years communication is facilitated by www. Accordingly, we are in a historic phase of transition as to communication in a republic. These dynamics have been discussed for centuries, by, e g, Jefferson, C S Peirce, and Habermas. In usa and britain a tycoon from Australia has taken over big pieces of media, e g, Fox News. In Norway media outlets are subsidized by state. How can people know what is going on? How can representatives/politicians know what people are thinking? A gap becomes an abyss. Maybe AP desperately tries to stop FrP/Hoyre facebook success. ----------------------- 7:44 PM 4/4/2018 These are my thoughts as to tendencies merely, but may be helpful. In the classic social/political conundrum of equality v v freedom, the Left tends toward the former, the Right toward the latter. The Left promotes conformity, the Right encourages individuality. The Left sees people as the same as each other, while the Right observes individual differences. So, the Left ignores the differences due to ethnicities of refugees, while the Right notices that conflicts arise due to ethnic background. And in politics generally, the Left expects its group of followers to conform to pattern, but the Right expects supporters to think independently. -------------------------- 5:48 PM 4/6/20185:48 PM 4/6/2018 Folks observe politicians like players in games of skill, as well as representatives of values. Whether or not an event that works out well for my side i wnder if its was ddue to luck, skiill, serendipity, planned tactic, the fault by the other team or teams, and i watchto seee if it is a one-off or apattern. I watch to see how the victoty is exploited, and how the position taken by the marines is stabilized y the infantry, how the guards defend what the forwards got, how well the team is prepared for using unexpected advantage, and if the managemennt had arranged things hoping for that result. Will the new situation be beneficial and the transition ssmooth, or clumsy, with our evaluation of the situation tend to criticize our leaderrs. Is our team solid, the replacement good, the relief pitcher a closer. Of course, the adversaries hope wewill stumble, making a careless error while resting after the crisis---the minister in a softer job caught by foolishness. What if General Patton had not slapped that soldier? ----------------- 12:19 AM 4/7/2018 A basic dynamic in politics is that one tends to support a politician perceived as successful in manipulating neighbors, even when oneself is not convinced by the tactics employed---in usa this is refered to as the hellovu fella effect...notable example being President Reagan. One wants to agree with a leader en masse, altogether, when one agrees with him/her basically, in principle, as to values, and likes his style. A foreign observer, e g, a norwegian politician, needs to be careful in praising or imitating a Reagan, as he used a panoply of slogans, only some of which are palatable elsewhere, while ones own electorate probably objects strongly to some details, or even to his basic values or their implications, particularly in, e g, Norway. ----------------------- USA immigration policy is always fundamentally different from that of any small nation. Altho USA has actually often limitted immigration, its basic concept is to be a country of immigrants, and even refugees, while small nations historically defend native ethnicity---that Americans lack proper system of essential services is due to lack of ethnic cooperation...each ethnic group refuses responsibility for other groups members. Rationalle for USA immigration policy is absolutely/definitively different from the norwegian---USA a soup, Norway one spice. ------ 1:31 AM 4/7/2018 Words can be traps. Norwegians must learn to talk with each other, instead of against each other---in discussing the current crisis norwegians use some words they do not understand...so they yell like pre-kindergarten infants while foreign ethnicities who are not confused by quibbling, being too desperate to quibble, hope to breach our borders to escape from the chaos they flee (chaos which is the result of their own ancestral rotten societies), bringing their religious wars into rich gardens full of elves to exploit. There are some words that have no meaning but function dangerously as slogans. One such virus-word is #racism#. Starting in 19th century universities, as a perversion of Darwin, it linked observed ethnic/cultural and skin-color differences to imagined genetic/evolutionary hierarchy. When difficult scientific concepts get explained to the masses, corruption is to be expected. Spencer popularizing Darwin misrepresented the theory of evolution, with the statement, #survival of the fittest#. Careless journalists still use that silly expression. Actually, Darwin described evolution as non-survival of what did not fit the environment. But, to british imperialist ears, fittest meant #we brits#. In USA dictionaries #racism# means #whites hating blacks#. Of course, in Europe since Hitler racism means something vague---anything associated with ethnic conflict...especially if reminiscent of #aryanism#, i e, Nazi boast that northern europeans are the superior race. Scandinavians are thus especially disgusted and embarrassed by anything even vagely associated with anything possibly calling them a superior race. But, the great thing is always to distinguish---if europeans refuse to dissect the catch-all word #racist#, Hitler will have continued his evil by having paradoxically disabled intelligent analysis of a real problem. Ethnic difference is real and important. To sweep it under the rug is as foolish as hiding homosexuality in the closet. Honesty is the best policy. Compounding the crisis, we have simultaneously a generation of old-folks without higher education which could prepare them to do tasks of subtle societal analysis, and a new generation of sanctimonious voters who feel guilty for being rich. Some young norwegians say they do not deserve more than do the refugees---failing to realize that actually it is not a question of #deserve#...it is that norwegians are obligated to preserve and promote the values that have made life admirable for us. There are many countries that are rich, in oil, fish, etc, but have bad government---that is why people flee from there to here. Unfortunately, the cultures that cause refugees also remain in the minds of refugees---people do not automatically get reprogrammed by landing in Norway. While we want to do our part to help humanity world-wide, we will do better by bringing Norway to the 65000000 refugees than by bringing 65000000 refugees to Norway. Life is full of paradox. Another flaw in norwegian culture, besides defensive conformist sloganizing, is lack of imagination. Parochial isolation of rural population spread over big landscape combines with geographic isolation in north-west corner of europe, and a mother-tongue separate from lingua-franka. So, norwegians must think alone. This has resulted in a great culture admired world-wide, including the most world-geniuses of all Scandinavia. Still, the price is lack of cosmopolitan ferment as is found in, e g, New York City. Ah, but it is unfair to ask so much of little Norway! Unfortunately, fate has no pity. Fortunately, however, we have universal communication. The ball is in our court. Norway must disenthrall its mind from smugness, and grapple positively with threats immediate and future, which cannot be avoided. We must constantly ask, #What if?#. Let the current refugee problem be a lesson to us. What can we learn from it? Will it not happen again? How must the entire issue of refugees world-wide be dealt with, for our sake, and for humanity generally? What about human over-population? Can number of children per refugee family be limitted by law? Do kids learning to read in third-world read anything not religious? Are we able to discover the most intelligent/talented individuals among refugees? Or sift out the depraved? How many refugees will be fleeing famine in 2070? What pandemics will start in refugee camps, and what pandemics will start in China? Will Russia accept refugees? What can we do to stop 60,000 women every year dying from faulty abortions? How can we help women counter religious sexism world-wide? And how can we manage our own prosperity throughout the future, with enough nurses, enough voters who think, and less who put mohammed, or the pope, above Norway---and more who want to save orangutans, gibbons, gorillas, sloths, elephants, dolphins, whales, etc.?

2018-04-07 15:07:57

Orginalt innlegg på Facebook