Vacation Modus

The health and exercise routines that I've recently embarked on have put me in a vacation modus. With my focus now primarily on general wellbeing, there's less time to ponder the significance of things. Besides, most of my original thinking is probably behind me. I'm not likely to change my mind on anything. Thoughts that come to mind are mostly variations on things that I've already stated. Time has come to move on, and put out my thoughts further into practice.

In my case, taking maximum advantage of my situation means a further exploration into things that make me feel good about myself and life in general. To that effect, I helped organize a gathering of Norwegians to celebrate Norway's constitution day here in Porto. I've also made some suggestions regarding a possible cooperation between me and my film maker son. He may one day make a series of short lectures on my theory of physics. I'm planning to make more frequent calls to my children in Norway to keep in touch with how their adult lives are progressing.

The overall idea is to take it easy from here on out, but I'll probably still note things down in this blog from time to time, because there's always the odd observation or novel thought that deserves a note. However, I don't expect a flood of thoughts going forward. My focus will be more towards my wellbeing and the lives and interests of my closest friends and relatives.

Vacation modus

All States are Oligarchies

A study of the US political structure concluded back in 2014 that the US, far from being a republic and a bastion of freedom, is in fact an oligarchy. The average citizen has no real say in political matters, while the super rich have access directly into legislative bodies. When new laws are proposed, corporate interests are always considered; that of the average guy in the street, not so much.

This finding caused quite a stir, and the subject is still debated. However, it shouldn't be a surprise at all. The state is a parasitic entity in society, and is of obvious concern to any family with any ambition to better itself. Additionally, the state is an artificial construct, invented by man, while the family is a construct of nature, aka God. The family is therefore a far stronger political entity than the state. Families can band together to take control of the state. If they have assets to protect and material ambitions for themselves it would be folly to do otherwise.

No central coordination of the oligarchy is required because the families are united in their concern. They will therefore act in apparent coordination when the state apparatus for some reason becomes unhinged, as happened in Norway after World War 2. My great-grandfather didn't coordinate his moves with other wealthy heads of families. He did what made sense to him personally, and so did all the other heads of families that form the oligarchy that is the Norwegian state.

This process is natural and inevitable. It's therefore safe to say that all states are in fact oligarchies. States may at times become unhinged, and an established oligarchy can be ousted, or even rounded up and executed, as happened in Russia after the communist revolution of 1917. But a new oligarchy will immediately take its place. Every member of the new state is a member of some family, and every one of them has a natural, God given, loyalty to their family rather than the state. They will therefore seek to obtain power and wealth for themselves through their new connections.

Russia's current oligarchy is a legacy from 1917. Looking closer at it, I'm sure we'll find members that have roots going farther back in history. This is certainly the case in Norway, where the current oligarchy is dominated by families that have had privileged positions within the state apparatus going back centuries. My family can demonstrate 500 years of close ties with the state. I'm sure my family isn't unique, neither in Norway nor anywhere else.

The state will always be under the control of certain families, and it cannot really be any other way given the natural order of things. However, the state will never reveal this truth to anyone. It will instead seek to hide it, and the stronger the oligarchy behind it becomes, the more it will seek to demonize the family as an institution. This is because the state's power derives from people who give it higher loyalty than their own families. The more people relinquish their family ties in favour of the state, the more power and resources are given to the oligarchs.

The perfect arrangement, as far as the oligarchs are concerned, is a state that convinces everybody that their highest loyalty is to the state while at the same time hiding the fact that behind the façade of the state lives a large number of families in affluence and with no other loyalty than to themselves.

However, if people stopped giving the state any loyalty at all, and started acting in the exact same way as the oligarchs themselves, the state would be directly impacted, and the oligarchy would lose its power. It's therefore important for the state to constantly invent reasons for people to feel politically engaged. Everything has to be seen in the context of the state, and everyone must be given the impression that debates and votes matter. As long as people spend their energy debating, arguing, demonstrating and voting, the state remains intact, regardless of which solution is voted upon.

On the other hand, if we focus on our families and our friends, and we avoided the state as much as possible, we can create real changes for ourselves and our loved ones. The more we break away from the state, the less power is given to the oligarchs, and the more is retained for ourselves.

The social contract

William's Change in Attitude

The insanity unleashed during the virus scare was a real eye opener for many. Who would have thought that a majority of our fellow men would enthusiastically root for lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates; that vaccine passports and concentration camps for the unvaccinated would become popular ideas; that liberty would be thrown away for the mere prospect of protection against what was evidently a fairly harmless virus?

The scare revealed that the vast majority of people are way more simpleminded than I and many with me had imagined, and we were all disheartened. Before the virus scare, we held some hope that the virtues of liberty and a free society would gain popularity, provided we put our case forward properly. After the scare, hardly any of my liberty minded friends hold any hope for a general awakening. People are set on collectivist ideas. They don't want liberty. They want feudalism.

While I remain confident that liberty will win over tyranny in the post-virus era, I don't think it will come about through political argument. Rather, it will come about through necessity and pragmatism. The liberty minded will act on their principles, and they will navigate pragmatically towards their desired goals. They will focus on family and friends, and they will let politics be politics. The political stage is not a place for the liberty minded. Nothing ever comes of it. It's a waste of time and energy.

A similar realization must have struck my great-grandfather, William, during the second world war, because he dramatically changed his attitude towards politics over the four years that the war was raging. He was a vocal libertarian, and even had a seat in parliament on a libertarian platform, before the war. After the war, he abandoned politics. His attention become focused on his family and business, and he forged many strong ties with the emerging welfare state in the process.

William must have realized during the war that very few of his fellow men were interested in liberty. The problem in the eyes of most Norwegian's wasn't so much with the politics put forward by the national socialists, but the fact that it was being put forward by Germans. Hardly anyone objected to the socialist agenda, complete with state provided welfare, education and pensions. The state was going to take care of people from cradle to grave, and this feudal idea was widely popular.

Socialist thing made a great leap forward during the war. So much so that the nationalization of private businesses was seriously considered by a large minority of political parties.

William who had risked much in his fight against the Nazis during the war must have been appalled by the fact that the very people he hoped to help were now plotting to steal all his wealth. However, he didn't mention this with a word. Instead, he did like the prince in The Leopard, he sided with the majority. He became a friend of the "moderate" socialists. He invited them over to his mansion for dinner. He gave them lucrative positions in his various enterprises.

William was in turn given lucrative positions in various state enterprises. He made many connections, and he promised to provide whatever the top bureaucrats in various departments were requesting. He forged solid ties with the department of education as well as the department of culture. Thirty-five years later, when his grandson navigated the business even further into feudal waters, the counter manoeuvre was complete. The last remaining restrictions on how the family business disposed of the various subsidies given to it by the welfare state were relinquished.

Thanks to this crafty bit of forward looking pragmatism, William secured for his descendants a place among the new nobility, namely the well connected families with strong ties to the welfare state. It's a supremely feudal system, but it's also widely popular, and having seen how dead set against liberty most people are, I no longer see any reason to actively change it. My anarchist views have grown stronger. What matters is not what everyone thinks, but how we navigate through the landscape as it is.

Constance and William

Av Gustav Borgen – Norsk Folkemuseum: image no. NFB.49970, via digitaltmuseum.no., Offentlig eiendom, Lenke

Silly Coronation Stunts

I watched the coronation of king Charles III on TV on Saturday. It was a longwinded affair with much pomp and circumstance, so I watched it only with half an eye. I don't think I missed much by not watching every minute of it.

Most people interviewed in the streets were enthusiastic about the event, but some were against it. They held up #NotMyKing signs and shouted angry slogans, which reminded me of the #NotMyPresident signs people waved about after Trump's victory back in 2016.

While it's understandable that people find a coronation ceremony less than convincing as far as political legitimacy is concerned, I find the #NotMyKing gang no less silly. They have figured out that a king has no legitimate power outside his private domain, but they haven't yet figured out that a president has no legitimacy either. The inauguration of a president is also a mystic affair. It too is void of any support in natural law.

Some of the protesters claimed that England's constitutional monarchy was a form of totalitarianism, which I found particularly stupid. The king has limited powers, and as far as totalitarianism is concerned, we have by now ample evidence that democracy doesn't protect anyone against it. The lockdowns in the West were as totalitarian as it gets, far worse than what was seen in Africa and other supposedly less free places.

What people don't realize is that #NotMyKing and #NotMyPresident movements are types of controlled opposition. The idea behind them is that the state itself is legitimate and that only the figureheads are lacking in legitimacy. People fight each other over figureheads, but the state remains unaffected. The state apparatus doesn't care one way or another as long as it remains intact.

This is the insight expressed in the film The Leopard that I finally got round to watch a few days ago. The aging price is fully aware of the futility in trying to change anything through strife. His only concern is for his family and their assets, and he navigates perfectly through the bloody revolution. While people kill each other over political trivialities in Palermo, the prince moves out of the way. When the dust settles, he returns to his palace. When asked which side he's on, he tells everyone that he's with the majority. He's one of the good guys.

The social contract

Never Ending De Facto Truce

The big Russian winter offensive everyone expected at the end of last year never materialized. Instead, fighting in Ukraine became centred around minor towns and villages. The most notable being the current siege of Bakhmut, which has been ongoing for months.

This has led to an apparent draw in which neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have gained anything. The lack of spectacular battle scenes to telegraph around the world has also created the impression that the war is contained, and that it's fought at a moderate level, with moderate casualties and material loss.

This impression has been further strengthened by western media which assures everyone that Ukraine will win the war, provided we send them the weapons and munition required to continue the fighting.

The result of this is that any calls for western mobilization has fallen on deaf ears. The narrative simply doesn't support it. Why risk our sons and daughters in a war that the Ukrainians will win anyway, provided we keep sending them money to buy military gear?

From a strategic viewpoint, this is exactly what Russia wanted to happen. By drawing things out in time and refraining from doing anything spectacular, they've avoided an escalation of the war. Foreigners aren't rushing in to fight shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainians. Instead, they are sending money and hardware into what is pretty much a black hole.

Bakhmut is surrounded on three sides. There's a single road leading into the town from the Ukrainian side, and soldiers and military equipment is being poured into battle through this road. However, nothing is coming out of the town, except dead and wounded soldiers.

Now that spring has come, we'll see less fighting going forward. Bakhmut is likely to fall to the Russians, and that will be the end of hostilities for now. It may even be the end of the war.

The Russians made it clear from the start that their concern was only with the safety and security of their Russian brothers living in the eastern regions of Ukraine. Now that this landmass has been secured by the Russians, their strategic goal has been accomplished, and the ideal outcome would be for the fighting to stop.

With the West unwilling to accept defeat, the Russians are unlikely to secure a peace deal. However, there's another strategy that can be employed which will reduce the fighting to nothing over time. It requires no written document, nor any acceptance of defeat by the opponent. It can be employed unilaterally, and has no expiration date.

The strategy is called "tit for tat", and is used as much in civil life as in military operations. The idea is that aggression by one side is immediately met with a fierce and targeted response. In the case of the Russian-Ukrainian war, the Russians will respond to any counter offensive with fierce artillery bombardments of known positions. However, it there's no counter offensive, there won't be any hostility coming from the Russian side either.

This strategy is known to be effective in encouraging peaceful coexistence when applied all the way down to single soldiers and civilians. People refrain from acting with aggression when they know that aggression on their side will be met with a fierce and targeted response. Civil society operates this way, and so does the military.

Russia has succeeded in capturing the disputed eastern region of Ukraine without provoking the west into direct involvement on the ground. They are therefore likely to follow this up with a never ending de facto truce. A few years from now, the Russian-Ukrainian war will be as forgotten as Russia's stealth take over of Crimea. No-one will talk much about it. Civil life will continue as if nothing has happened.

Vladimir Putin

By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, Link

Captured Revolutions

“Everything must change for everything to remain the same”: pronounced by Tancredi in the novel “The Leopard”, written by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa.

May 1 was for a while dreaded by the elite. Factory workers were catching onto the various schemes that the elite were using in order to keep them from getting ahead in the world. Everything from social segregation to taxation was being denounced. There were protests and strife. However, this all subsided over the years and May 1 is now largely a day dedicated to pleasant reminiscing.

We are told that the labour movement was a success. All the main issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the average worker, and there are only minor issues left. Parades are victory marches that end up in town squares where politicians hold speeches.

So much has been gained by the labour movement, they say. Yet, taxes are as high as ever, and segregation based on just about any criteria is back in fashion. In reality, nothing much of substance has changed. The progress that has been made is not due to the labour movement, or political action, it's the result of the steady progress made by ordinary people in their ordinary lives.

A similar thing happened with Christianity back in Roman times. It was a truly revolutionary force. But the movement was absorbed by the elite who established what is today the Catholic Church. Rome became Christendom, the emperor became pope, and the empire lived on.

This is how all revolutionary movements peter out over time. The reason for it being a top layer of coordinating functionaries that always seem to find their way into such movements.

Once a layer of experts are allowed to make decisions on behalf of a movement, it's doomed. The inevitable outcome is complete capture by the elite.

The American Revolution was supposed to usher in a government for the people, by the people. Less than three hundred years later, the US is no more free than any other country. Christianity was supposed to bring us directly in touch with God. It quickly became an elite institutions where the Bible itself was restricted knowledge.

The only revolutionary movement I can think of today is the Yellow Wests in France, but I haven't heard much about them lately. They are either in hiding or they've been infiltrated.

There's only one type of movement that the elite truly fears, and that is the leaderless movement. The sort of movement that has many people talking favourable about it, but no coordinating node. Such movements cannot be controlled by the elite.

This is why they fear the true anarchists. People who don't believe that anyone has any right to dictate anything to anyone cannot be subjugated without much force and brutality. But if we focus our energy and our resources on our families and our friends, with no other concern about others than to keep an eye on them in case they do something dangerous to us, we become practically invisible to the elite.

The elite depend on us believing in their authority. If we stop doing it, they lose their power, and things will improve for us all. But this requires a great deal of constraint on our part, because we have to let other people decide for themselves what is right for them. We cannot get rid of the elite if we keep allowing them to interfere in other people's lives.

If something doesn't concern us directly, we must hold no strong opinion on the matter. It's none of our business what someone chooses to do inside their circle of family and friends if there's no spill-over into our circles.

Keep in mind the consequences of insisting on a law that regulates other people's lives. Once that premise is accepted, there's no limit to what that power can be used for, and the elite will come back in full force to wield it against everyone, including us.

Stay focused on the only thing that matters, and suggest that others do the same. Let family and friends know that they are the only thing we care about. Lead by example. Be successful in our private affairs and promote success in others. That's the only thing that matters, and to go beyond that is nothing but a waste of time.

Family