Lo folks it's been a very long time since I have written, here. I have published some stuff on my other blogs but here I have not posted in ages.
The lighthouse was ever meant to be a place where I can post my thoughts on pretty much anything, a place where I fling my light into the darkness and hope that someone catches it. Anyway today that is a movie review. I know it's not what you're used to but bear with me.
As you may have guessed from the title the movie is fantastic beasts and where to find them. The first movie in a new harry potter franchise. Now i'll be going into the movie in some detail so:
Spoilers! you nitwit!
Well now that you have been warned let's start (I should probably point out that this will make no sense to a person who haven't seen the movie).
When first seeing the movie I for some reason found myself really really disliking the main character, it is only on sleeping on it that I realized why, he reminds me a bit to much of myself, he prefers not to meet peoples eyes, he gets stale in conversations and he can be very blunt, oh and he gets totally carried away when he's talkign about a subject he's comfortable with, then all that repressed sociality (is that a word?) bubbles out when he knows how to handle it. In short the guy has aspergers syndrome. Once I realized that I realized that this is perhaps the best portrayal of the "disorder" (god I hate that word) that I have ever seen. I mean I'm one of those people who like Sheldon Cooper from big band theory despite being a pretty blunt stereotype, because at least he is true to his nature. But Sheldon and even more the savant type characters with Autism that we so often see in media represent a few very fringe cases, most people with Autism/aspergers aren't like that, they're more like Newt. Another character I feel might represent the spectrum is Rodney McKay from stargate Atlantis, though as much as I appreciate David Hewlett's acting he doesn't quite get the feeling of odd down as well as Eddie Redmayne does with Newt Scamander.
Now I have poked around the internet and a lot pf people seems to think Redmayne added this to the character himself. I don't think so. The throw away line from Queenie when she first meets Newt convinces me it's in the script. "I always find it hard to read you people... British". No she does not find it hard to read British she finds it hard to read you people autistic people, though the wizarding world might not even have a term for it.
That said I think the original script may have been a lot more ham handed with Newts "disorder" than Redmayne ended up playing it. Hence why a lot of people miss the fact that he is supposed to have it at all. My guess is that Redmayne either knows someone with it, or went and interacted with people with it to study his role. It's actually a bit sad, he does one of the best performances of a disorder of all times and 1. It's stuck in a movie that will never get any proper recognition because of it's genre. 2. People are so used to seeing autism presented as the stereotype that they can't even recognize when someone is trying to do a more subtle version. In a way it reminds me of Starship troopers who did it's anti fascist mocking so subtle the movie ended up becoming a fan favourite with neofascists, we really don't reward subtetly these days. I hope this does not go the way of Starship toopers and make the messege a lot less subtle in the sequal.
Anyway movie-ing on. Now as for the plot I have a few issues. First of what is up with Queenies legilimency? Voldemort was described as the most powerful legilimency in the world and yet even he could only know when people lied to him without using that spell (Legilimens) and a wand. But Queenie actually reads minds, without wands or spells. She even reads them at considerable distances despite Snape's assurance that "Time and space matter in magic". What she does seems more like the force than magic.
Secondly the obscuratus, it has been mentioned several times in the Harry Potter franchise that wizards learning to control their power on their own is a bad idea. I think they may have overdone it a bit though, with one such boy being practically able to level a whole city.
And thirdly and what is big on the spoiler Grindelwald. I have two points with him really, first of why Johnny Depp? He looks like a reject from a punk band not like the sauve man who led a generation of European wizards to go to war against one another. Nothing like either of his previous appearances. Not the handsome boy in the Photographs, and not the old man in Nurmengard.
Which leads me to my other point, why is he even in the movie? Wouldn't it have been infinitely more interesting to have Graves be one of his disciples or perhaps just a sympathizer? Show how deeply rooted the ideas of Grindelwald really is in the wizarding world at large. How even well meaning witches and wizards may find themselves led astray when they feel pushed. It's basically captain america the winter soldier all over again. Instead of showing that the champions of good can be corrupted by their own paranoia they squander the idea by having the big bad directly manipulate them into it. Totally ruining the point. No way the head of the American Aurors office could have fallen to Grindelwals rethoric on his own, no he got to actually be Grinelwald posing as Graves. No way that there can be a facist streak in the US intelligence agencies (winter solder), no they got to have been actually infiltrated by nazis for that to happen. A movie which shows such subtlety elsewhere here totally fails on subtlety.
Oh yes and another point. This Girndelwald is older than the one who stole the elder wand, which means that the wand we see him use in this movie probably is the elder wand. Hence why he is able to take on a hundred "aurors" at the same time, also that was maybee a tad much, the power of wizards such as Voldemort and Girndelwald is that they can turn the wizarding world on itself and thus not face it united because then even the most talented wizard would fall to sheer numbers. Using terror and the bystander effect to make people afraid to oppose them openly, and dealing with anyone who does in the most ruthless way possible (In voldemorts case usually murdering them and their entire family to set an example). But I have gotten of topic, the point is there's no way Grindelwald could have done that without the elder wand (in fact he shouldn't have been able to do it with it) which means that by taking the wand from him either Newt Scamander or Tina Goldstein may have become the new masters of the elder wand, which might explain why Dumbledore can actually defeat Grindelwald years later, because Grindelwald is no longer the wands master (how was he ever the wands master though? he stole it, he did not take it in battle).
Oh one more thing relating to the reveal, Notice how good Newt really is at fighting, I mean Tina is a auror, yet she gets beaten fairly easily by Graves/Grindelwald, Newt holds out for a lot longer. It again makes me think of his disorder, people with asbergers are often vert very good at thinking on their feet in aciris. And both Harry Potter and Severus Snape has suggested that the most important talent for a duellist is this. Granted he is beaten, but then again he is facing the second greatest dark wizard of all time.
Actually one thing beyond that, Jacob and Queenie, Why didn't they just go to magical Britain instead, we know that muggles are allowed to know there is they are in a close relation to a wizard or witch. And they sure seemed like they were heading into close relation territory.
Oh well that is what I had today,
See you in another few years.
lördag 27 maj 2017
måndag 29 februari 2016
The words of a cigarrsmoking ginsoaked Britt.
Yes I am of course refering to Winston Leonard (Spencer) Chrurchill (though he is by no means the only ginsoaked cagarr smoking Brit that ever lived).
In the light of the Uk referendum on the European Union I thought I would remaind any Brits who are thinking to vote to leave the union of the words of the man who is commonly cosndiered the greatest British Prime Minister thus with no further ado from Churchill's Speech on BBC radio, the 15th of November 1934:
"There are those who say: Let us ignore the Continent of Europe. Let us leave it with its hatreds and armaments to stew in its own juice, to fight out its own quarrels. Let us turn our backs upon this alarming scene. Let us fix our gaze across the ocean and lead our own life in the midst of our peace-loving dominions and empire. There is much to be said for this plan if only we could unfasten the British islands from their rock foundations and could tow them 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean and anchor them safely upon the smiling coasts of Canada. I have not heard of any way in which this could be done. No engineer has come forward with any scheme; even our best scientists are dumb. It would certainly in any case take a long time. Have we got a long time? At present we lie within a few minutes’ striking distance of the French, Dutch and Belgian coasts, and within a few hours of the great aerodromes of Central Europe. We are even within cannon shot of the Continent. Is it prudent? Is it possible, however we might desire it, to turn our backs upon Europe and ignore whatever may happen there. Everyone can judge this question for himself. And everyone ought to make up his mind, or her mind, about it, without delay. It lies at the heart of our problem."
Churchill knew full well that the UK could not stand aside from the issues of Europe and that the only way to ensure that Europe did what he belived they ought to do were to get involved in european politics directly. Had Churchill been in charge at the onset of the german expansion before WW2 we might not have seen a war at all. He may have dealt with Hitler before he got a chance to gain momentum, the generals and soldiers who were so willing to follow Hitler to war in 1939 may have been much less inclined to do so in 1936. But Chamberlain thought that the affairs of europe did not matter to the British. Once again right wing extremism is rising in europe, granted it is much inclined to tear the Union apart rather than infectign it, but should these elements not be contained one may well give rise to another Hitler. If nothing else the warmingering of the Kreml may well result in war on the european continent again. If Britain stands aside then it loses all it's ability to affect the outcome of these events, granted there are others to fight the good fight, but can you rely on that others will fight this battle before it reaches you shores. If you let these forces in europe sow the wind do you not risk to reap te whirlwind?
Churchill was also one of the first to suggest the formation of a United States of Europe:
"I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller states have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas are a vast, quivering mass of tormented, hungry, careworn and bewildered human beings, who wait in the ruins of their cities and homes and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a Babel of voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, and that is all that the Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide. Indeed, but for the fact that the great republic across the Atlantic realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve her own fate as well, and stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor. They may still return.
Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as by a miracle transform the whole scene and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and happy as Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.
Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union, which owes so much to the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War - the League of Nations. The League did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because those principles were deserted by those states which brought it into being, because the governments of those states feared to face the facts and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is, therefore, much knowledge and material with which to build and also bitter, dearly bought experience to spur.
There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis can only survive if it is founded upon broad natural groupings. There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the honourable destiny of man? In order that this may be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which the millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
We all know that the two World Wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of Germany to play a dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished. Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war. But when all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, there must be an end to retribution. There must be what Mr Gladstone many years ago called a “blessed act of oblivion”. We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past and look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years to come hatreds and revenges which have sprung from the injuries of the past. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family, this act of oblivion against all crimes and follies of the past. Can the peoples of Europe rise to the heights of the soul and of the instinct and spirit of man? If they could, the wrongs and injuries which have been inflicted would have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is the only lesson of history to be that mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to will it and all will achieve their heart's desire.
I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe will be such as to make the material strength of a single State less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by a contribution to the common cause. The ancient States and principalities of Germany, freely joined for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe.
But I must give you warning, time may be short. At present there is a breathing space. The cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped. But the dangers have not stopped. If we are to form a United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now. In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I even say protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a nation which, we know, will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom, but it may well be that in a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and that the catastrophe following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call civilisation but may possibly disintegrate the globe itself.
I now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!”"
While I do not nessecerily agree with everything Churchill says in this speech especially as it relates to Germany, he raises some intresting points, some which I on reading the speech am surpised at, in mentioning the german Princedoms it seems that churchill does in fact suggest that subnational institutions be allowed to interact directly with europe, something that that I have myself been thinking a lot about lately. It makes little sense that people in the regions of europe should have to go through their national capitals to interact with europe, especially when they may not see eye to eye with said capitals, Scotland and Catalonia would for an example be perfect examples of regions that would perhaps be intrested in their own representation in the union. But that is a discusison for another day.
The point I wish to raise today is that even Churchill knew that unity on the european continent was the only wau to avoid repeating the endless cycle of bloodshed that has been europe's history since the fall of the western roman empire.
Let us not forget that this is the man, one of the few who foresaw the world wars. When everyone else thought that the Napoleon wars were the last conflcit between cicilised nations that would happen he dimissed that notion. When others said that the first world war was the war to end all wars (Quite how they figured that is beyond me) he once again told them that it would not be the case. And now when his voice reach us through th ages to warn us that if there is not a united states of Europe then the cycle of bloodshed will continue, shall we again dismiss his warnings? I think not.
In the light of the Uk referendum on the European Union I thought I would remaind any Brits who are thinking to vote to leave the union of the words of the man who is commonly cosndiered the greatest British Prime Minister thus with no further ado from Churchill's Speech on BBC radio, the 15th of November 1934:
"There are those who say: Let us ignore the Continent of Europe. Let us leave it with its hatreds and armaments to stew in its own juice, to fight out its own quarrels. Let us turn our backs upon this alarming scene. Let us fix our gaze across the ocean and lead our own life in the midst of our peace-loving dominions and empire. There is much to be said for this plan if only we could unfasten the British islands from their rock foundations and could tow them 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean and anchor them safely upon the smiling coasts of Canada. I have not heard of any way in which this could be done. No engineer has come forward with any scheme; even our best scientists are dumb. It would certainly in any case take a long time. Have we got a long time? At present we lie within a few minutes’ striking distance of the French, Dutch and Belgian coasts, and within a few hours of the great aerodromes of Central Europe. We are even within cannon shot of the Continent. Is it prudent? Is it possible, however we might desire it, to turn our backs upon Europe and ignore whatever may happen there. Everyone can judge this question for himself. And everyone ought to make up his mind, or her mind, about it, without delay. It lies at the heart of our problem."
Churchill knew full well that the UK could not stand aside from the issues of Europe and that the only way to ensure that Europe did what he belived they ought to do were to get involved in european politics directly. Had Churchill been in charge at the onset of the german expansion before WW2 we might not have seen a war at all. He may have dealt with Hitler before he got a chance to gain momentum, the generals and soldiers who were so willing to follow Hitler to war in 1939 may have been much less inclined to do so in 1936. But Chamberlain thought that the affairs of europe did not matter to the British. Once again right wing extremism is rising in europe, granted it is much inclined to tear the Union apart rather than infectign it, but should these elements not be contained one may well give rise to another Hitler. If nothing else the warmingering of the Kreml may well result in war on the european continent again. If Britain stands aside then it loses all it's ability to affect the outcome of these events, granted there are others to fight the good fight, but can you rely on that others will fight this battle before it reaches you shores. If you let these forces in europe sow the wind do you not risk to reap te whirlwind?
Churchill was also one of the first to suggest the formation of a United States of Europe:
"I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller states have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas are a vast, quivering mass of tormented, hungry, careworn and bewildered human beings, who wait in the ruins of their cities and homes and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a Babel of voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, and that is all that the Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide. Indeed, but for the fact that the great republic across the Atlantic realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve her own fate as well, and stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor. They may still return.
Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as by a miracle transform the whole scene and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and happy as Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.
Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union, which owes so much to the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War - the League of Nations. The League did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because those principles were deserted by those states which brought it into being, because the governments of those states feared to face the facts and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is, therefore, much knowledge and material with which to build and also bitter, dearly bought experience to spur.
There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis can only survive if it is founded upon broad natural groupings. There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the honourable destiny of man? In order that this may be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which the millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
We all know that the two World Wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of Germany to play a dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished. Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war. But when all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, there must be an end to retribution. There must be what Mr Gladstone many years ago called a “blessed act of oblivion”. We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past and look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years to come hatreds and revenges which have sprung from the injuries of the past. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family, this act of oblivion against all crimes and follies of the past. Can the peoples of Europe rise to the heights of the soul and of the instinct and spirit of man? If they could, the wrongs and injuries which have been inflicted would have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is the only lesson of history to be that mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to will it and all will achieve their heart's desire.
I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe will be such as to make the material strength of a single State less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by a contribution to the common cause. The ancient States and principalities of Germany, freely joined for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe.
But I must give you warning, time may be short. At present there is a breathing space. The cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped. But the dangers have not stopped. If we are to form a United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now. In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I even say protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a nation which, we know, will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom, but it may well be that in a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and that the catastrophe following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call civilisation but may possibly disintegrate the globe itself.
I now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!”"
While I do not nessecerily agree with everything Churchill says in this speech especially as it relates to Germany, he raises some intresting points, some which I on reading the speech am surpised at, in mentioning the german Princedoms it seems that churchill does in fact suggest that subnational institutions be allowed to interact directly with europe, something that that I have myself been thinking a lot about lately. It makes little sense that people in the regions of europe should have to go through their national capitals to interact with europe, especially when they may not see eye to eye with said capitals, Scotland and Catalonia would for an example be perfect examples of regions that would perhaps be intrested in their own representation in the union. But that is a discusison for another day.
The point I wish to raise today is that even Churchill knew that unity on the european continent was the only wau to avoid repeating the endless cycle of bloodshed that has been europe's history since the fall of the western roman empire.
Let us not forget that this is the man, one of the few who foresaw the world wars. When everyone else thought that the Napoleon wars were the last conflcit between cicilised nations that would happen he dimissed that notion. When others said that the first world war was the war to end all wars (Quite how they figured that is beyond me) he once again told them that it would not be the case. And now when his voice reach us through th ages to warn us that if there is not a united states of Europe then the cycle of bloodshed will continue, shall we again dismiss his warnings? I think not.
tisdag 16 februari 2016
A letter From Cameron
I am sorry I could not find any funny headline this time. David Cameron has sent a letter to Dunald Tusk the president of the European Council (That is the assembly containing the head of states that has the executive authority in the EU) regarding what Cameron wants to see change in order for the UK to stay in the EU. Now Some of you will know I am deeply critical of Cameron, and his anti EU policy and thus will be reading the letter with that in mind.
The letter can be foud here.
Go ahead and read it, and then I'll make the points I found when reading it (before descending into sarcasm and cynisism, I am sorry it's just my nature)
Finished? Ok let's go:
"I have been encouraged in many of my conversations with my fellow Heads of Government in recent months that there is wide understanding of the concerns that I have raised, and of the case for reforms that would benefit the European Union as a whole."
The first part is a threat as far as I can tell, It's basically meant to be read as "There are more people on my side than you may know". The second part I expected Cameron is going to try to meddle in the internal functions of the EU even if partly leaving it. The Brittish isles have worked har dot destabilise mainland europe since the fall of the roman empire (Listen to the second verse of god save the Queen, "confuse their politics" allright) they are going to oppose a united European state even if no one asks them to be part of it.
"There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union. There are Euro members and non-Euro members. As set out in Protocol 15, the United Kingdom has a permanent opt-out from the Eurozone. Other countries will in due course join the Euro. But, for now, there are nine of us outside; and it matters to all of us that the Eurozone succeeds."
No there really are not, as he states himself only Britain has been given an opt out, this is flirting with the other countries trying to avoid fulfilling their treaty obligations, namely Sweden and Denmark (Who are required to join as soon as they fulfill the criteria, which they are intentionally failing to do), by saying if they work with Cameron they may be given the opt out too. The last remaining six are simply countries that have yet to fulfill the criteria but as far as I know have every intention of joining the Euro zone (though someone from these countries may correct me here).
"These principles should include recognition that:
The EU has more than one currency."
The policy before has been that being part of the EU means adopting the Euro, this would grant a permanent sanction for the UK version of membership. That said this is not so diffrent from the two lane europe suggested by Guy Verhostadt.
"There should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of the currency of their country."
Notice how it's always about the rights of buinesses never people, that is something the EU themselves always do too. Aside from that nothign important here.
"The integrity of the Single Market must be protected."
We want ensurances that even if we never join the EU we don't get left out. Over thime this will become untennable ofcourse then again there is no permanently binding nature of suhc a treaty. That said the free movement of people which is what the UKIP have been railing against, is part of the single market.
"Any changes the Eurozone decides to make, such as the creation of a banking union, must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never compulsory."
Without giving the euro zone it's own assembly for intenral issues this will pretty mcuh mean that the UK get's to pick whatever parts of being a member it that it likes and disregard all others.
"Taxpayers in non-Euro countries should never be financially liable for operations to support the Eurozone as a currency."
How is this new? They haven't paid a dime to the crisis relief. Neither have Sweden and Denmark by the way. At least not as part of the EU help programme.
"Just as financial stability and supervision has become a key area of competence for Eurozone institutions like the ECB, so financial stability and supervision is a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank of England for non-Euro members."
This is again "I don't want to be part of the bank union, and flirting with sweden and denmark.
"And any issues that affect all Member States must be discussed and decided by all Member States."
All issues to some capacity affects all member states, this is giving himself the rigt to meddle again.
"So the United Kingdom welcomes the current European Commission's focus on supporting economic growth and scaling back unnecessary legislation."
Note how he never says what he considereds "unnecessery legislation". If it's for an example the ban on GMO I'm there with him but I'm guessing that it's more along the lines of the ban on roaming charges. After all expect tories to stand up for the interest of buisnesses not people.
"The United Kingdom also welcomes the new trade strategy published last month, reflecting an agenda we have been advocating for years and including pursumg potentially massive trade deals with America, China, Japan and ASEAN."
Hardly suprising there since Cameron wants the EU to just be a free trade agreement.
"The EU should also do more to fulfil its commitment to the free flow of capital, goods and services."
Note how he leaves out people from the four freedoms of the EU.
"First, I want to end Britain's obligation to work towards an 'ever closer union' as set out in the Treaty. It is very important to make clear that this commitment will no longer apply to the United Kingdom. I want to do this in a formal, legally-binding and irreversible way."
Nothing is irreversiable Davy boy, That said this pretty much is what Guy Verhofstadt said when he suggested a two lane Europe and it it preferable to losing the UK as part of the union. That said security meassures must also be put into place to ensure that their influence in the inner workings of the EU are limited accocrdingly.
"Second,
while the European Parliament plays an important role, I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required will be a matter for the negotiation."
"I'm sorry Dave I can't let you do that" Strenghtening the power of national parliaments and heads of states is exactly the opposite of the transperacy that we have been stricing so hard towards the last decades. It'll lead to more backroom deals and thus more corruption. Only by brinign these proceedings out into the light and allowing people to interact more directly with the European union without having to go through the hassle and beurucracy of national governments can we make the system work again.
"The UK believes in an open economy..."
But?
".. But..."
Called it
"... we have got to be able to cope with all the pressures that free movement can bring -on our schools, our hospitals and our public services."
Except you take less people than Germany does, even per capita. Abd guess what they've concluded that taking people from the poorer countries of the EU and making them productive members of society actually gives a net income.
"Our population is set to reach over 70 million in the next decades and we are forecast to become the most populous country in the EU by 2050."
That's funny I read a report only a few weeks back that said france would be the most popolous country in the EU by 2050. Truth is by cherry picking you reports you can have them give you any conclusion you wish them to have.
"At the same time, our net migration is running at over 300,000 a year. That is not sustainable. We have taken lots of steps to control immigration from outside the EU. But we need to be able to exert greater control on arrivals from inside the EU too."
Or atleast so Nigel Farrange claims and since he's stealing votes from you, you agree. But again sustainable is exactly what it is. May be some pressure in the short perspective but the sustinability is not the problem.
"Britain has always been an open, trading nation, and we do not want to change that."
But? (Also not technically correct)
"But..."
Who would have guessed.
"... we do want to find arrangements to allow a Member State like the UK to restore a sense of fairness to our immigration system and to reduce the current very high level of population flows from within the EU into the UK."
You take less people than germany and fewer people per capita than a huge number of smaller EU members like sweden. But hey you know what we'll take even more, that's fair... oh wait. Jokes aside actually I really don't care since again eu immigration is a gain not a loss, but if germany keeps swallowing them up like they're doing then he can kiss that largest nation in the EU by 2050 goodbye. This is again not really about immigration Cameron was fine with that until the UKIP started taking his voters. The facts on the table haven't changed since then.
"These have been unplanned and are much higher than forecast -far higher than anything the EU' s founding fathers ever envisaged. These very substantial flows of population have, of course, also had a significant impact on a number of Member States, many of whose most highly qualified citizens have departed en masse. So this is a shared challenge."They told you so did they? Because last I heard they predicted this pretty well, the poor go to the rich countries and work and then send money home which helps build the economy of the poorer countries. I think it's called a "market economy", there was one of you countrymen, name of Smith, who talked a lot about it, you may want to read up on that before saying what we knew and did not know would happen. God Dave you make me miss the american electoral race, say what you will of the americans but they do understand capitalism.
"We need to ensure that when new countries are admitted to the EU in the future, free movement will not apply to those new members until their economies have converged much more closely with existing Member States."
So... never then? If you withold the means for wealth to flow to them then they won't catch up... god you are the worst conservative since the menaing of the word changed to mean libertarian.
"We also need to crack down on the abuse of free movement, an issue on which I have found wide support in my discussions with colleagues. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages. It means addressing the fact that it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than it is for a British citizen to do the same. It means stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back, as well as preventing entry in the first place. And it means addressing ECJ judgments that have widened the scope of free movement in a way that has made it more difficult to tackle this kind of abuse."
Pretty sure fraud is a crime, here's an idea why don't you let the police handle crime. But if you want to give them more authority for an example giving Europol actual policing powers I am all for that.
The second part is just emotion invoking rethorics, I know I do it too. Also funny how there was no (ok little) abuse before the UKIP statert convincing people these was.
"But we need to go further to reduce the numbers coming here."I am so glad I'm not an EU immigrant in the UK right now, this is getting nasty. Honestly cristallnacht nasty, time to get the hell out of dodge nasty. This is the moment people will look back on and say why didn't we leave at this point.
"As I have said previously, we can reduce the flow of people coming from within the EU by reducing the draw that our welfare system can exert across Europe. So we have proposed that people coming to Britain from the EU must live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing. And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas."Here's an idea let's segregate society into two groups, but my my Oliver Cromwell would be so poud.
"I understand how difficult some of these issues are for other Member States and I look forward to discussing these proposals further so we can find a solution that deals with this issue."Well of course you do because before you turned your coat you used to argue for immigration. The diffrence is back then you were right, now you're just a populist.
And that's pretty much the last intresting part, after that it's just a bunch of courtesies.
So what do you think, do you read the letter diffrently than me? Comment below.
The letter can be foud here.
Go ahead and read it, and then I'll make the points I found when reading it (before descending into sarcasm and cynisism, I am sorry it's just my nature)
Finished? Ok let's go:
"I have been encouraged in many of my conversations with my fellow Heads of Government in recent months that there is wide understanding of the concerns that I have raised, and of the case for reforms that would benefit the European Union as a whole."
The first part is a threat as far as I can tell, It's basically meant to be read as "There are more people on my side than you may know". The second part I expected Cameron is going to try to meddle in the internal functions of the EU even if partly leaving it. The Brittish isles have worked har dot destabilise mainland europe since the fall of the roman empire (Listen to the second verse of god save the Queen, "confuse their politics" allright) they are going to oppose a united European state even if no one asks them to be part of it.
"There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union. There are Euro members and non-Euro members. As set out in Protocol 15, the United Kingdom has a permanent opt-out from the Eurozone. Other countries will in due course join the Euro. But, for now, there are nine of us outside; and it matters to all of us that the Eurozone succeeds."
No there really are not, as he states himself only Britain has been given an opt out, this is flirting with the other countries trying to avoid fulfilling their treaty obligations, namely Sweden and Denmark (Who are required to join as soon as they fulfill the criteria, which they are intentionally failing to do), by saying if they work with Cameron they may be given the opt out too. The last remaining six are simply countries that have yet to fulfill the criteria but as far as I know have every intention of joining the Euro zone (though someone from these countries may correct me here).
"These principles should include recognition that:
The EU has more than one currency."
The policy before has been that being part of the EU means adopting the Euro, this would grant a permanent sanction for the UK version of membership. That said this is not so diffrent from the two lane europe suggested by Guy Verhostadt.
"There should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of the currency of their country."
Notice how it's always about the rights of buinesses never people, that is something the EU themselves always do too. Aside from that nothign important here.
"The integrity of the Single Market must be protected."
We want ensurances that even if we never join the EU we don't get left out. Over thime this will become untennable ofcourse then again there is no permanently binding nature of suhc a treaty. That said the free movement of people which is what the UKIP have been railing against, is part of the single market.
"Any changes the Eurozone decides to make, such as the creation of a banking union, must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never compulsory."
Without giving the euro zone it's own assembly for intenral issues this will pretty mcuh mean that the UK get's to pick whatever parts of being a member it that it likes and disregard all others.
"Taxpayers in non-Euro countries should never be financially liable for operations to support the Eurozone as a currency."
How is this new? They haven't paid a dime to the crisis relief. Neither have Sweden and Denmark by the way. At least not as part of the EU help programme.
"Just as financial stability and supervision has become a key area of competence for Eurozone institutions like the ECB, so financial stability and supervision is a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank of England for non-Euro members."
This is again "I don't want to be part of the bank union, and flirting with sweden and denmark.
"And any issues that affect all Member States must be discussed and decided by all Member States."
All issues to some capacity affects all member states, this is giving himself the rigt to meddle again.
"So the United Kingdom welcomes the current European Commission's focus on supporting economic growth and scaling back unnecessary legislation."
Note how he never says what he considereds "unnecessery legislation". If it's for an example the ban on GMO I'm there with him but I'm guessing that it's more along the lines of the ban on roaming charges. After all expect tories to stand up for the interest of buisnesses not people.
"The United Kingdom also welcomes the new trade strategy published last month, reflecting an agenda we have been advocating for years and including pursumg potentially massive trade deals with America, China, Japan and ASEAN."
Hardly suprising there since Cameron wants the EU to just be a free trade agreement.
"The EU should also do more to fulfil its commitment to the free flow of capital, goods and services."
Note how he leaves out people from the four freedoms of the EU.
"First, I want to end Britain's obligation to work towards an 'ever closer union' as set out in the Treaty. It is very important to make clear that this commitment will no longer apply to the United Kingdom. I want to do this in a formal, legally-binding and irreversible way."
Nothing is irreversiable Davy boy, That said this pretty much is what Guy Verhofstadt said when he suggested a two lane Europe and it it preferable to losing the UK as part of the union. That said security meassures must also be put into place to ensure that their influence in the inner workings of the EU are limited accocrdingly.
"Second,
while the European Parliament plays an important role, I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required will be a matter for the negotiation."
"I'm sorry Dave I can't let you do that" Strenghtening the power of national parliaments and heads of states is exactly the opposite of the transperacy that we have been stricing so hard towards the last decades. It'll lead to more backroom deals and thus more corruption. Only by brinign these proceedings out into the light and allowing people to interact more directly with the European union without having to go through the hassle and beurucracy of national governments can we make the system work again.
"The UK believes in an open economy..."
But?
".. But..."
Called it
"... we have got to be able to cope with all the pressures that free movement can bring -on our schools, our hospitals and our public services."
Except you take less people than Germany does, even per capita. Abd guess what they've concluded that taking people from the poorer countries of the EU and making them productive members of society actually gives a net income.
"Our population is set to reach over 70 million in the next decades and we are forecast to become the most populous country in the EU by 2050."
That's funny I read a report only a few weeks back that said france would be the most popolous country in the EU by 2050. Truth is by cherry picking you reports you can have them give you any conclusion you wish them to have.
"At the same time, our net migration is running at over 300,000 a year. That is not sustainable. We have taken lots of steps to control immigration from outside the EU. But we need to be able to exert greater control on arrivals from inside the EU too."
Or atleast so Nigel Farrange claims and since he's stealing votes from you, you agree. But again sustainable is exactly what it is. May be some pressure in the short perspective but the sustinability is not the problem.
"Britain has always been an open, trading nation, and we do not want to change that."
But? (Also not technically correct)
"But..."
Who would have guessed.
"... we do want to find arrangements to allow a Member State like the UK to restore a sense of fairness to our immigration system and to reduce the current very high level of population flows from within the EU into the UK."
You take less people than germany and fewer people per capita than a huge number of smaller EU members like sweden. But hey you know what we'll take even more, that's fair... oh wait. Jokes aside actually I really don't care since again eu immigration is a gain not a loss, but if germany keeps swallowing them up like they're doing then he can kiss that largest nation in the EU by 2050 goodbye. This is again not really about immigration Cameron was fine with that until the UKIP started taking his voters. The facts on the table haven't changed since then.
"These have been unplanned and are much higher than forecast -far higher than anything the EU' s founding fathers ever envisaged. These very substantial flows of population have, of course, also had a significant impact on a number of Member States, many of whose most highly qualified citizens have departed en masse. So this is a shared challenge."They told you so did they? Because last I heard they predicted this pretty well, the poor go to the rich countries and work and then send money home which helps build the economy of the poorer countries. I think it's called a "market economy", there was one of you countrymen, name of Smith, who talked a lot about it, you may want to read up on that before saying what we knew and did not know would happen. God Dave you make me miss the american electoral race, say what you will of the americans but they do understand capitalism.
"We need to ensure that when new countries are admitted to the EU in the future, free movement will not apply to those new members until their economies have converged much more closely with existing Member States."
So... never then? If you withold the means for wealth to flow to them then they won't catch up... god you are the worst conservative since the menaing of the word changed to mean libertarian.
"We also need to crack down on the abuse of free movement, an issue on which I have found wide support in my discussions with colleagues. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages. It means addressing the fact that it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than it is for a British citizen to do the same. It means stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back, as well as preventing entry in the first place. And it means addressing ECJ judgments that have widened the scope of free movement in a way that has made it more difficult to tackle this kind of abuse."
Pretty sure fraud is a crime, here's an idea why don't you let the police handle crime. But if you want to give them more authority for an example giving Europol actual policing powers I am all for that.
The second part is just emotion invoking rethorics, I know I do it too. Also funny how there was no (ok little) abuse before the UKIP statert convincing people these was.
"But we need to go further to reduce the numbers coming here."I am so glad I'm not an EU immigrant in the UK right now, this is getting nasty. Honestly cristallnacht nasty, time to get the hell out of dodge nasty. This is the moment people will look back on and say why didn't we leave at this point.
"As I have said previously, we can reduce the flow of people coming from within the EU by reducing the draw that our welfare system can exert across Europe. So we have proposed that people coming to Britain from the EU must live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing. And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas."Here's an idea let's segregate society into two groups, but my my Oliver Cromwell would be so poud.
"I understand how difficult some of these issues are for other Member States and I look forward to discussing these proposals further so we can find a solution that deals with this issue."Well of course you do because before you turned your coat you used to argue for immigration. The diffrence is back then you were right, now you're just a populist.
And that's pretty much the last intresting part, after that it's just a bunch of courtesies.
So what do you think, do you read the letter diffrently than me? Comment below.
fredag 27 februari 2015
I have been and always shall be your fan
The king is dead long live the king. Leonard Nimoy has passed away, sure it's neither philosphy not politics, but as a cast member and a writer from star trek he was once of the foremost champions of enlightenment, and he shall be dearly missed.
Enlightenment is not only about thinking it's also about inspiring people to chose to path of enlightenment, and that cna only be done by showing that we actually can win, that we actually can overcome our baser instincts and achieve great things. The vulcan are often accused of being mary sues in star trek, better at everythign than humans, but that's becuase people don't realsie they're an ideal to strive towards. And no one sold that superior alien being quit as well as Leonard Nimoy, no one made it quite as believable. I wish him the best whereever he may be, and if he has gone into the oblivion of non existance then his menory and legacy shall live on, and keep inspiring us to be the very best that we can.
Peace and long life.... Live long and prosper.
onsdag 3 december 2014
You've crossed the line
Lo folks
Yesterday the swedish riksdag (the decision making body of the Kingdom of Sweden) refused to pass the (social democrat and environment party) government's budget, and passed the moderate/liberal oppositions coalitions budget. As a result of this the swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven promised that in december he will announce a new election (according to swedish constitution ha cannot formally announce it until three months after the previous election) to be held in March the 22 of next year (again in accordance with constitution he could at earliest slate in in february but he's pushing it back one more month to allow the second largest party the Moderate Conservatives time to elect a new leader after their previous leader, previous prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, resigned after he lost the election earlier this year).
Most of us knew this would happen, more on why later, and even with it looming the parties close to Löfven's government has been unwilling to open up any kind of dialogue, amongst them the liberal party that I myself am a supporting member of. Now I'm not saying the leftist government are entitled to the support of the centrists and liberals, they aren't, but I fail to see why listening to them would have been a bad thing. After all the conservatives that the liberals reigned with during the previous term (collectively known as the Alliance for Sweden, or derogatory as the bourgeoisie alliance) was no more liberals than the social democrats are. The liberals have reigned with the social democrats before and I hope they will do so again when it fits their agenda. This locking ourselves up in blocks is problematic since it pushes us towards a two party system that benefits no one.
That said this is not primarily their fault, the alliance (however little I may like it) proposed a coalition opposition budget and of course they will vote for that budget. No the ones to blame are the third block. The Swedish Democrats, isolationist, mercantilist, cultural nationalists and value conservatives (derogatory usually referred to as racist, though granted that is an oversimplification).
Now you don't need me to tell you that their ideals and agenda is basically diametrically opposed to everything I stand for, I find them simplistic, ignorant, biased, shortsighted and overly fond of simple solutions to what is really complex issues. So naturally a lot of people love them. There will always be those ready to rally to the banner of "Those there are the enemy let's fight them" (granted that is true for the extreme left too).
But (ah that little word), I have regardless defended them from a lot of the flack they have received over the years, not because I agree with them, but because I believe in freedom of speech, I believe that if 13% of the swedish people vote for them, we need to respect that. Well that was true, up until yesterday. Up until then the Swedish Democrats for all their loathsome opinions have, parliamentary speaking, acted like professionals.
But in abandoning their own budget proposition and supporting the alliance they have also abandoned every pretense of being a serious party. Now some of you people will say "But hey Fredrik what if they liked the Alliance Budget", and you'd be right, if that was the case my point would be moot. But a statement they made two days ago when they promised they'd resort to this course of action blows that possibility out of the water. acting party leader Matthias Karlsson promised that the Sweden democrats would vote down any budget proposed by a government that did not cave to their demands of reduced immigration (they desire a 90% reduction).
I'm sorry... did but to me, that sounded awfully much like a threat, a threat of reprisal to anyone who does not give in to their demands.
You know I believe there is a word for that, it's called terrorism (albeit white collar one). And that's a line that once you've crossed you cannot come back from. I have been defending your right to express yourself, defended the task you've been given by the swedish people, but this is not it, you have made a mockery of the system and shown your true colour. I can see only one answer to that, as much as I am a fan of compromise, there can be only one course of action, this must be opposed whatever in every way possible. This is a declaration of war towards the establishment, and they think it will benefit them, but the truth is that they have given us the people who like me have been forced to shield them because of our belief in the democratic systems a perfectly good excuse not to.
And your declaration of war will not hurt the ones you oppose, no it'll hurt everyone, the swedish stock market will suffer from increased uncertainty, which by extension means that the economy of every person in Sweden will suffer. Funds that should've reached schools and welfare will be frozen. And any reforms by either side of the political spectrum, as well as the ability to react to things that happen, will have to wait six months to after the new election and the election of a new prime minister.
You may have pleased your angry young men demographic but you will find that crossing that line has cost you a lot, and you will not be able to get back over it, not easily at least. When you eventually get voted out of office you'll look back and you'll see this moment of petty as the turning point.
Yesterday the swedish riksdag (the decision making body of the Kingdom of Sweden) refused to pass the (social democrat and environment party) government's budget, and passed the moderate/liberal oppositions coalitions budget. As a result of this the swedish prime minister Stefan Löfven promised that in december he will announce a new election (according to swedish constitution ha cannot formally announce it until three months after the previous election) to be held in March the 22 of next year (again in accordance with constitution he could at earliest slate in in february but he's pushing it back one more month to allow the second largest party the Moderate Conservatives time to elect a new leader after their previous leader, previous prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, resigned after he lost the election earlier this year).
Most of us knew this would happen, more on why later, and even with it looming the parties close to Löfven's government has been unwilling to open up any kind of dialogue, amongst them the liberal party that I myself am a supporting member of. Now I'm not saying the leftist government are entitled to the support of the centrists and liberals, they aren't, but I fail to see why listening to them would have been a bad thing. After all the conservatives that the liberals reigned with during the previous term (collectively known as the Alliance for Sweden, or derogatory as the bourgeoisie alliance) was no more liberals than the social democrats are. The liberals have reigned with the social democrats before and I hope they will do so again when it fits their agenda. This locking ourselves up in blocks is problematic since it pushes us towards a two party system that benefits no one.
That said this is not primarily their fault, the alliance (however little I may like it) proposed a coalition opposition budget and of course they will vote for that budget. No the ones to blame are the third block. The Swedish Democrats, isolationist, mercantilist, cultural nationalists and value conservatives (derogatory usually referred to as racist, though granted that is an oversimplification).
Now you don't need me to tell you that their ideals and agenda is basically diametrically opposed to everything I stand for, I find them simplistic, ignorant, biased, shortsighted and overly fond of simple solutions to what is really complex issues. So naturally a lot of people love them. There will always be those ready to rally to the banner of "Those there are the enemy let's fight them" (granted that is true for the extreme left too).
But (ah that little word), I have regardless defended them from a lot of the flack they have received over the years, not because I agree with them, but because I believe in freedom of speech, I believe that if 13% of the swedish people vote for them, we need to respect that. Well that was true, up until yesterday. Up until then the Swedish Democrats for all their loathsome opinions have, parliamentary speaking, acted like professionals.
But in abandoning their own budget proposition and supporting the alliance they have also abandoned every pretense of being a serious party. Now some of you people will say "But hey Fredrik what if they liked the Alliance Budget", and you'd be right, if that was the case my point would be moot. But a statement they made two days ago when they promised they'd resort to this course of action blows that possibility out of the water. acting party leader Matthias Karlsson promised that the Sweden democrats would vote down any budget proposed by a government that did not cave to their demands of reduced immigration (they desire a 90% reduction).
I'm sorry... did but to me, that sounded awfully much like a threat, a threat of reprisal to anyone who does not give in to their demands.
You know I believe there is a word for that, it's called terrorism (albeit white collar one). And that's a line that once you've crossed you cannot come back from. I have been defending your right to express yourself, defended the task you've been given by the swedish people, but this is not it, you have made a mockery of the system and shown your true colour. I can see only one answer to that, as much as I am a fan of compromise, there can be only one course of action, this must be opposed whatever in every way possible. This is a declaration of war towards the establishment, and they think it will benefit them, but the truth is that they have given us the people who like me have been forced to shield them because of our belief in the democratic systems a perfectly good excuse not to.
And your declaration of war will not hurt the ones you oppose, no it'll hurt everyone, the swedish stock market will suffer from increased uncertainty, which by extension means that the economy of every person in Sweden will suffer. Funds that should've reached schools and welfare will be frozen. And any reforms by either side of the political spectrum, as well as the ability to react to things that happen, will have to wait six months to after the new election and the election of a new prime minister.
You may have pleased your angry young men demographic but you will find that crossing that line has cost you a lot, and you will not be able to get back over it, not easily at least. When you eventually get voted out of office you'll look back and you'll see this moment of petty as the turning point.
måndag 1 december 2014
Arr there be a change in the waters.
Lo folks, this post is about Pirates, no not the jack sparrow kind the pirate party movement. Specifically about the swedish one.
Most of you don't know it but I used to be a firm believer in the movement back in the day. I believed as Marconi did when he introduced the radio (Yes I know Tesla managed to get it to work before he did, no I'm not interested in whatever you think Tesla invented) that open dialogue would make mankind better people more open minded and less hateful. And then Hitler and Stalin used it for the exact opposite, well we're not there yes, hopefully we will never get there with misuse of the internet. But the thing is while I still believe in an open and free internet as a propagator of enlightenment and reason, I long ago lost faith in the Pirate party movement and it's simplistic anti authority solutions (I'm simply too old to be a angry young man).
Most of you don't know it but I used to be a firm believer in the movement back in the day. I believed as Marconi did when he introduced the radio (Yes I know Tesla managed to get it to work before he did, no I'm not interested in whatever you think Tesla invented) that open dialogue would make mankind better people more open minded and less hateful. And then Hitler and Stalin used it for the exact opposite, well we're not there yes, hopefully we will never get there with misuse of the internet. But the thing is while I still believe in an open and free internet as a propagator of enlightenment and reason, I long ago lost faith in the Pirate party movement and it's simplistic anti authority solutions (I'm simply too old to be a angry young man).
But because of my former interest in the party I kept them in my facebook feed, I have over the times commented on some of their posts telling them they need a vision beyond being a discontent party. Well they did no better in the last two elections than in any of the previous, and now today their party leadership announced that they resigned.
(These are all in swedish but international readers may want to translate using chrome)
Here's a press release by Party Leader Anna Troberg.
Here's her letter of farewell to her supporters.
Here's a press release by Party Leader Anna Troberg.
Here's her letter of farewell to her supporters.
Now assuming that you have read these I'll discuss the issues I have had with the Pirate Party and the issues they seem to have had in their party.
When I talk politics I like not to define it as one dimensional left right axis, I prefer to view it as a three dimensional cartesian space. Defined by three axises. The first one is obvious, it's the left right axis, from conservative on the right to socialist on the left.
The second axis is progressive versus reactionary, no reactionary is not conservative.
The last axis is globalisation, versus isolationism and merchantilism. (Enlightenment to me is in the progressive centre-left globalisation corner)
Now the pirate party long ago decided upon where it is on the progressive reactionary axis. It's progressive, it wants to tear down the old order and always struggles against authority. But it has issues on where it is on the other two axises. It has avoided touching the globalisation issue (and the related europification) with a ten foot pole, it has also failed to define it's position on the left right axis, making sudden leaps between liberalism, libertarianism and borderline socialism. And while this has managed to help them get discontents from both sides of the left right spectrum it has also led to strong opposition inside the party when the party decided to expand it's issues.
The whole gamer gate thing seems to have upset that balance further, with the leftists in the party moving strongly against the opinions of gamergate seeing it as the hand of the patriarchal authority that according to the party's anti authority creed needed opposing, but the libertarians in the party saw that opposition to be authority of the cultural socialism that needed opposing. That is ever the problem with anti authority messages indignation and righteous rage. With we and them thinking. Because authority isn't a united them, not is those without it united we.
And that's where the party fails to live up to it's potential, it needs to make these choices, now I think they should go for the liberal path, education, knowledge and freedom of through, even when that means we have to suffer such lowlives as those who use the so called gamer gate to propagate sexism. That is the price we pay for freedom, but being a liberal and a progressivist I am a firm believer that the voices of reason will eventually win out.
But perhaps even more because the leftist party already pushes the integrity line in the left flank so they're not really needed there while the political centre needs an influx of new thoughts.
I also wan to raise my voice in opposition of the idea that questions of gender struggle and ethnic and cultural diversity are leftist ones. They are not, they are progressive ones, and while the nature of how they are handled on the left right and centre may differ the end goal does not. In fact the idea of gender equality came from a liberal concept of egalitarianism, one of the fundamental pillars of liberalism.
Well change is at hand in the pirate party, new leaders will have to be chosen, I hope those are strong visionaries that can lead us back on the path of progress, and better living through technology, but I find if rather more likely that the pirate party will descend into gamer gate hell and lose it's progressivism in favour of taking the reactionary idea to preserve the status quo.
The last axis is globalisation, versus isolationism and merchantilism. (Enlightenment to me is in the progressive centre-left globalisation corner)
Now the pirate party long ago decided upon where it is on the progressive reactionary axis. It's progressive, it wants to tear down the old order and always struggles against authority. But it has issues on where it is on the other two axises. It has avoided touching the globalisation issue (and the related europification) with a ten foot pole, it has also failed to define it's position on the left right axis, making sudden leaps between liberalism, libertarianism and borderline socialism. And while this has managed to help them get discontents from both sides of the left right spectrum it has also led to strong opposition inside the party when the party decided to expand it's issues.
The whole gamer gate thing seems to have upset that balance further, with the leftists in the party moving strongly against the opinions of gamergate seeing it as the hand of the patriarchal authority that according to the party's anti authority creed needed opposing, but the libertarians in the party saw that opposition to be authority of the cultural socialism that needed opposing. That is ever the problem with anti authority messages indignation and righteous rage. With we and them thinking. Because authority isn't a united them, not is those without it united we.
And that's where the party fails to live up to it's potential, it needs to make these choices, now I think they should go for the liberal path, education, knowledge and freedom of through, even when that means we have to suffer such lowlives as those who use the so called gamer gate to propagate sexism. That is the price we pay for freedom, but being a liberal and a progressivist I am a firm believer that the voices of reason will eventually win out.
But perhaps even more because the leftist party already pushes the integrity line in the left flank so they're not really needed there while the political centre needs an influx of new thoughts.
I also wan to raise my voice in opposition of the idea that questions of gender struggle and ethnic and cultural diversity are leftist ones. They are not, they are progressive ones, and while the nature of how they are handled on the left right and centre may differ the end goal does not. In fact the idea of gender equality came from a liberal concept of egalitarianism, one of the fundamental pillars of liberalism.
Well change is at hand in the pirate party, new leaders will have to be chosen, I hope those are strong visionaries that can lead us back on the path of progress, and better living through technology, but I find if rather more likely that the pirate party will descend into gamer gate hell and lose it's progressivism in favour of taking the reactionary idea to preserve the status quo.
Well enough ranting for now, until next time.
söndag 21 september 2014
Prelude to Axanar, strangely prophetic
A few months ago I saw the youtube clip called prelude to Axsnar. A trailer for a new star trek movie. Included in it was a speech made by admiral Ramirez. At the time I thought it was just a cool speech, very star trek.
But with the raising level of hostilities between the European Union and the Russian federation the speech has begun to feel very much an ale got lay for what way be facing soon. Which is odd since is.must have been filmed before russia annexed crimmea. Anyway here the speech, consider it yourself, with the federation being the European union and the klingon empire representing the Russian federation.
We are facing an enemy that is consumed and committed to our total destruction . Am enemy that demands to be fought, and we shall fight.
But I say to you all, our greatest challenge is the not might of a klingon fleet.
The greatest challenge laying before us is to do what must be done, without undoing the dream of the federation.
For myself I have but one fear destroying the dream of the federation, compared to such a loss, I do not fear the Klingon empire.
I say it applies very well to the situation we are facing, nothing is more important than maintaining the European dream. If we must fight russia so be it. But we must not let them break the union apart. Don't get me wrong I really don't hope we have to go to war. But if we abandon the valt states and finnland to Russian advances we will have sacrificed the europea dream. The dream of a europe United through diplomacy and against war. A dream that people if so many people can come together as one and coexist. This dream rather than the American dream and it's promises of eternal progress may be the defining idea of our age. The key to a future where there is neither war nor conflict. Where all humans may live in peace and have sufficient food medicine and wealth to live happy content lives.
May be that we have to fight now so that future generations may live in peace. But we must on the other hand not become Russia. We must defend ourselves but no more than is nessecary. Otherwise we have again sacrificed the dream that is europe.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)