Feeling inclined to rant about communist Swedish people.

[lordmetroid]

As I have been spending some time with people I sometimes spends time with while yet not being friends in the sense that I know their person but just happens that we share common spare-time interests and associates now and then with each other. I noticed that most of them are commies, don't bother me much though but the notice of it did struck me a some time ago while we were eating pizza and I mentioned I will move to USA. Considering they detest USA for no reasons other than the brainwashed propaganda reasons they have been fed, they really couldn't understand why I would want to move to the biggest fascistic democrature(Democtric Totalitarian state). I just left the topic without further argumentation by stateing "Because there is still hope". I suppose I pity them rather than being annoyed at thier ignorrance.

The only real friend I have although I only meet him about twice a year has made it clear from the beginning of being a communist, fascistic raceist although he never speaks about philosophical ideas, is a master of manipulation of people and has a intellect that are capable of passing every single course the leading university of engineering had to offer in about 4 years. While we had a discussion about how society today have put a restrictive tabu for thinking in grandieus terms which he of course disagreed society does, yet when confronted with an example of grandieus new concepts not accepted by Swedish communist society became utterly hypocritic finding libertarians in general to be 'idiots' to paraphrase him...

I don't get Swedish people in general... I detest the manners of Swedes, I detest the Swedish mindset and I detest the Jante Law which pretty much all Swedes practices. Haven't liked these things since I returned from Japan.

[CNHT]

"...communal desire in the town, which is to preserve social stability and uniformity."

Well there you have it...socialism in a nutshell.

What ever happened to 'be all you can be'? That's what we believe here in the states. Personal best.

I think you need to move here Lordmetroid.   

[lordmetroid]

You know I agree... as soon as I got some money for a ticket and so on I'll be on the first aero craft to the americas.
I have no idea how to manage the totalitarian immigration control people though. I am thinking if I read through the contracts they will hand me and read them with the knowledge of legalese I learned from Robert Menard's speeches and apearences on FTL, thinkfree.ca and video.google.com if I could get into the land but not be part of the fictional society.

Probably not and as an immigrant I figure I would be utterly vurnable and the probability to to be sent somewhere where I can not bother them bureaucrats would be astronomly. But I don't think I can even get into the country in anyway but through a VISA lottery which would allow me to move not until 2009 if I would be selected in this years lottery. Totally bullshit! I am 24, I can't wait that long I need to start a family, career and so on.

[MaineShark]

"...communal desire in the town, which is to preserve social stability and uniformity."

Well there you have it...socialism in a nutshell.

What ever happened to 'be all you can be'? That's what we believe here in the states. Personal best.

Socialism = achieving equality by destroying all life.  Then everyone can be equal.

Joe

[AlexLibman]

From Johan Norberg's blog -- STALIN, WHO? --

Just in case you thought that some Russians in Estonia were the only ones who don't understand the history of communism: On DN Debatt today, Camilla Andersson and Anders Hjemdal from UOK presents a survey of young Swedes, aged 15-20:

• 90% don't know what Gulag was.

• 43% think that communism killed fewer than one million (a fifth think it killed fewer than 10,000).

• 40% believed that communism has increased global wealth

And it's not just the past they are ignorant about:

• 82% don't know that Belarus is a dictatorship.

[error]

The Swedish people's welfare state is making them sick.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/05/09/the-welfare-state-causes-sickness/

[lordmetroid]

Furthermore industries are full of people just sitting down chatting with each other all day long. I know one guy that took the tractor that was available on the industrial complex everyday and went off to one of the corners and slept all day long, did it for a couple of decades until someone found out and then he shaped up for a year and went back to his habit...

Yeah Swedish industry workers are really happy they have the unions.

[error]

Hey, that's what happens when the "workers" seize control of the "means of production"! They stop producing! And still expect to get paid.

[lordmetroid]

I had a fairly interesting although very frustrating discussion with my genius friend of mine(Passed all courses of the university he studied at in 4 years and taught courses himself in the university before graduation)

It is just another of many examples of the communist mindset of people in Sweden has.

<friend> record low performance in eurovision
<LordMetro> Whatever... I couldn't care less of that show
sorry to sound so cynical and ruin it for ya
<friend> No problem. Everyone on IRC is like that
<LordMetro> hehe
<friend> Don't care really. As long as Sweden looses
<LordMetro> hehe... Well I don't really care for the fictitious entity called Sweden!
It means as much to my as any other literature
<friend> Sweden is as concrete as as things can be
<LordMetro> Some fictitious line drawn on an inaccurate map... Yes concrete!
<friend> Like everything else
<LordMetro> One can deal with absolute facts as I have decided to do and governments, states and so on isn't included in my reality free from the delusions people living of the fiction want you to believe is there
<friend> It is a hard definition. If one shall be a philosopher (Which one shall not be but as you insist on playing that game) it is more fact than electrons & protons existence
<LordMetro> Yes, I like philosophy, I live by philosophical reasoning about morality and reality
<friend> pft
<LordMetro> However you go too far in that example!
I only apply philosophy to politics and morality
<friend> none-facts applied on none-facts
<LordMetro> Do you consider owning yourself and your body?
<friend> own is a legal definition. According to Swedish law, "no, not completely"
<LordMetro> Don't care about that fiction!
Care about reality!
<friend> It is the reality
If you don't care about the law you don't care about property
<LordMetro> Of course I do care about property
<friend> and vice versa
<LordMetro> The law has nothing to do with property
<friend> There is nothing in nature that defines property. It is a human invention
<LordMetro> Well the natural law can be applied but arbitrary law made by a few people has nothing to do with reality
<friend> ownership is controlled by law
<LordMetro> No, human law is made to ease the interaction between people...
Property which is a part of natural law does not.
<friend> One can define ownership in different ways but the modern civilized way is through law. It is clear however that it has nothing to do with nature
<LordMetro> What argument do you have for that?
<friend> Lack of mathematical evidence on the contrary
<LordMetro> If you eat an apple you refuse someone else the ability to eat that apple hence property does exist
<friend> That is one possible definition but that defines it from your action  and hence is a human invention
<LordMetro> Every man is created equal
<friend> That is greatly a human invention
<LordMetro> And your argument that two persons aren't equal would be?
<friend> Empirical evidence + lack of mathematical proof of the contradictory
<LordMetro> How convenient that you blame math...
<friend> I deal in science. If something can't be derived it is not science. nature is described by science and that is so
<LordMetro> This is philosophy, mathematical proofs are irrelevant when one discusses morality and politics
<friend> philosophy sorts in two categories; mathematical logic and humanism. The later is not science and hence totally irrelevant
<LordMetro> And why would it be irrelevant?
<friend> Because it is not founded on a well based mathematics so the system doesn't survive modern demands of stringency and neither is there a garantue for the system to not derive in contradictions(on the contrary we know of many)
in short the humanistic philosophy is an evolutionary dead end
<LordMetro> I would call it enlightenment
<friend> Only for those who isn't capable of handling science
<LordMetro> So you cling to the fictions wickedly corrupt lawyers calling themselves politicians creates for you?
<friend> No. I don't associate with humanists
<LordMetro> I remember different...
<friend> As what?
<LordMetro> I remember you stating to subscribe to being a communist, fascist and raciest
<friend> One can deal with politics mathematically if you accept certain postulates
then however it is not nature you deal with
<LordMetro> Of course it is not nature, first thing I did in this discussion was claiming that you went to far in your philosophizing.
<friend> not really. you claimed that certain things are part of nature but are not and that has not changed
<LordMetro> Political and moral philosophy is reasoning around human nature and behavior
Yes to establish what one call natural law which all derives from property
<friend> property is a postulate beyond nature. it is an arbitrary postulate
<LordMetro> It is not an arbitrary postulate...
<friend> it is easy to make other postulates that would up your postulate if used at the same time, but this other postulate would not violate nature. hence it is arbitrary
<LordMetro> I have no idea what you just tried to say...
<friend> mathematically: if you can have gamma\X |- X   then gamma\X |- !X  is also possible
so you can easily make other rules if you like
and certainly, I have conflicting postulates
I define property through law only
which together with yours can be used to derive negation
<LordMetro> I define property from self-ownership
<friend> hence the postulate is arbitrary
<LordMetro> No one but me can have any claim on my body unless I freely beg them too
<friend> that's a separate problem
<LordMetro> Someone can take it by force but that doesn't mean they have claim over it
It is not... a separate problem that is the basis of self-ownership
If someone tries to take claim of my body I can defend it hence the right to defend ones property is derived
<friend> your argument is over an arbitrary definition. I could easily ignore your non-natural postulates and I would not have any reason at all to bother about your postulates
this is pretty much ITT
<LordMetro> ITT?
<friend> intuitionistic type theory
a modern logic that can handle strange sub-logics
<LordMetro> Of course it is, I said I was dealing with human nature and morality
But it is also a fact that I have claim over my body and someone else can only have claim over it of I beg them too or I will defend myself
<friend> I only deal with science. over those there are postulates I use but those are for my internal decision making. I couldn't care less if other people use other postulates; it is just useless definitions anyway
<LordMetro> It is not useless to distinguish fiction from reality
*for
<friend> reality is nature. if humans make up something which they use for their internal computations then it is their own problems
morality and shit is clearly beyond nature
<LordMetro> Not all reality is nature but all reality derives from nature
<friend> the only pieces that are interesting are the pieces that can be derived. and 99% of morality cannot
<LordMetro> Than I subscribe to the 1%
<friend> you use postulates beyond nature to make your moral
<LordMetro> It is not beyond human nature!
<friend> when I talk nature, I talk about foundational physics
<LordMetro> People don't play with each other on that level
To claim that there is no property is too me utterly corrupt and denial of natural law
<friend> yeah, *to you*. because you have beyond-nature postulates
I play with other people using my own semi-compatible internal machinery + natural laws
<LordMetro> Claiming that you don't own your body is just unreality
<friend> you certainly lack the ability to meta-think -_- but so do most non-mathematicians
<LordMetro> I know what you mean, I just don't think you are right
<friend> it is because your definition of right also rests on postulates
<LordMetro> Claiming that some have more claim of their  body than others have of theirs is crazy
So demonstrate other line of reason...
<friend> there is no right and wrong. that is another human invention
<LordMetro> I have come to the conclusion that there is such thing as right and wrong
<friend> show derivation
<LordMetro> To agress against someone else property is wrong because you don't have claim over it.
<friend> so there you have used your postulate of property. hence your proof fails
<LordMetro> Even children knows this... 3 year old kids!
2 years old too probably
<friend> yes, these are postulates that most children replace with more civilized ones later in life
<LordMetro> Children firmly states something is theirs. Property entitles them to have total control over the object or intangible use of the object
<friend> but they are in either way postulates
<LordMetro> I call the civilized ones bullshit!
delusions
<friend> you might but that is your problem. after all, you are just dealing with your own postulates, not nature
<LordMetro> Forced upon people as authority is trying to be maintained even though it is wickedly wrong to pretend such authority would exist
So the civilized ones are of nature?
<friend> no
they are just commonly accepted ones
still arbitrary
<LordMetro> Of course they are, they are enforced upon everyone through the state's violence. Everyone who does not abide to them are killed
Doesn't make them right!
<friend> well. there we go again. "right"
<LordMetro> Yes, right comes from the self-ownership... Forcing someone else by aggression to overtake the control of someones property is wrong
<friend> right comes from one of your own beyond-nature postulates. since those are your own only, give me a reason to care?
<LordMetro> You don't want any reason
<friend> far too many postulate that their own postulates are the right ones according to their own postulate of right. if you want to get anything done you better rip out this postulate of your system because it makes you both inefficient and incompatible with pretty much every living being
<LordMetro> Yet you would practice it!
<friend> I have semi-solved the problem of having an extremely minimalistic set of postulates and use flexible systems (ODS) on top of this to emulate human behavior. I am compatible with almost everyone
*by having
the result is a very non-standard definition of moral but I can practice moral using the extended interaction system so it is not a problem
<LordMetro> Doesn't matter what you call it, you would practice self-ownership, it is human nature
<friend> I belong largely to the state
and my calculations make the same assumption for everyone else
<LordMetro> Right, you keep telling yourself that a fiction created by man for their own purpose to use owns you but when it boils down to it you would still practice self-ownership
*by man -> a few men
<friend> in this case I use your definition of ownership. I don't postulate ownership myself
I find it rather uninteresting if I do this or that according to some arbitrary definitions

I highlighted some of the more stunningly wicked statements that was uttered in the discussion that really shocked me. Really, why would anyone want to think in this manner is beyond my understanding. It is pure evil  and I call these people my friends 

[error]

You might try the Socratic method. It sometimes helps where any other direct persuasion fails utterly.

[BaRbArIaN]

The mind virus of socialistic thought is very difficult to cure, like other mind viruses (fanatical religion etc.).  Often the net result is to simplify their thinking to eventually come down to binary options, all or nothing, kill everyone that doesn't believe as we do.     Save your money and get out while the gettin' is good.   Even if you have to be poor somewhere else and risk staying that way.    Chances are if you have a work ethic you will end up fine.

[David]

Just a goofy thought;
I remember you once stated that you had some trouble finding a job.  Communism, at least in the usa, is a popular tem to bash.  Have you considered a for profit blog, 'Swedish Stupidity' kind of like errors www.Homelandstupidity.us/ .  Assuming there aren't already a bunch of others already doing it, of course.     Just a thought. 

[lordmetroid]

Yes I have considered it... Actually I considered writing articles for some place that would pay me, but entrepraneuring is in my blood with several generations of entrepraneurs. So indeed if it can provide some income I would be delighted to do such reporting. I shall investigate it all thurally and start it all up, I want to tell the stories.

Error: How do you get revenue generated?

[error]

Error: How do you get revenue generated?

Mainly through the Google ads (which you haven't noticed, or have blocked).