1. Those that behave badly are rejected and frozen out by their community. Thus they want a better life. They become refugees and seek a successful country. Thus you have a selection of bad people.

2. If you are in a shit school and the headmaster says, if you start fighting you will go to a much better school. What do you think that does to the motivation to keep peace? Thus the assylum system causes people to be motivated to fight.

3.All cultures are not equal. The nazi culture is bad, for example. The bad cultures causes torture and thus refugees. The bad cultures spread to nice cultures, and thus also become bad. Majorities decide in democracies. Do you want all countries to be bad? Then there will not be any nice countries to flee to.

4. If the entire world of people were made of ethnic Swedes, then I would still be against refugees. Bad cultures and bad people are not dependent on the race, but what you pick up as knowledge when you grow up.

5. The asylym system is non-future proof for independent nations, since in the near future, machine wombs will be invented (maybe assisted by Artificial Intelligence), and majorities win in elections, and tribes that massproduce babies with this artificial way will simply replace the indiginous population with the asylum system.

Women are destructive. The want to destroy what is beautiful and strong. That is just thier feelings, which are driven by their sub-conscious. Women need to understand this to prevent a disaster for human-kind. Some men are like women, too. For the same reason you should tell children that they are stupid, naive and childish, since this is the truth that will make them more careful not to be fooled, women need to understand that they have destructive feelings, carefully disguised. If you tell children that they are smart, their self-confidence increases, and believe they can master any situation, and they will be fooled by con-men more easily, which can lead to a disaster for them; hence it is better for children to be suspicious of what people tell them, if they know they are stupid, since then they will be harder to fool, and they will have greater chances of avoiding disaster. The same with women's destrutive feelings. It is not their fault that they are like this, though, it is their nature. This can be explained by evolutionary theory; when men in warfare had to much respect for the beauty of the enemy, women motivated the men to destroy that. Thus the women with such feelings of those tribes came out dominant and those genes thus spread. Further women compete for men, and competing beautiful women in a tribe were defeated by cooperating women who humiliated the beautiful women and thus lost status in the tribe and therefore attractiveness. Further proven capability wins over beauty, since sly, savvy and clever outmanoeuvers beauty, since motivational conspiring wins over alone beauty, and instinctive genetic agressiveness against beauty spread.

For example,

1. Sweden is a beatiful strong country. Women in general in Sweden want to accept refugees with bad cultures so that when they are in majority Sweden is destoryed as a good country. The majority usually rules, and if the majority is with a bad culture then the whole country is bad.

2. Decay of genepool. When children with genetic diseases are saved and have children in their turn, the proportion of the number of people with genetic diseases increases all the time. For example schizophrenia. The reason it increases is that while having children with genetic diseases does not on its own increase the proportion, but in combination wiht natural mutation, then the increase is fact. When the whole society has genetic traits of schizophrenia, then it is clear that the society is very bad, since all the idiots cannot rule the society, and everyone suffers. Thus it is in the idiots own long term interest not to have children, since in the long term the idiots will suffer by ruling with thier unwise decisions. But idiots do not know their own best. The worst gift you can give a child is a genetic disease in present. One has to adopt a healthy baby from Africa for example instead. One can also have voluntary genetic counceling (originator of idea, as far I know, John S Wilkins, au, https://evolvingthoughts.net/author/jswilkins/ ) to give the advice I have just given and convince the parents to be wise in these matters.

3. Dangerous technology. Genetic engineering is dangerous technolgy. One can for example create a virus that spreads quickly and kills a lot of people. Satan has set up a trap; the one who invents a virus with corresponding vaccine as a way of warfare, and realizing this type of warfare, giving the vaccine to its own and let the virus do its work, what matters is enjoying Paradise, and avoid spoiling the fun of Satan in his eager ogling of humans in this world. What is needed is regulation not to sell the equipment of genetic engineering to any and all. But this regulation in not there because of women, probably. They want all us humans to die from a deadly virus, that is just their feelings. It is not their fautlt, though. That is just the way they are, and they have to undrerstand themself to prevent that disaster happens.

On the other hand, women are good at motivating men to do their best. They can pressurize men really hard. They can entice men with sex. They can provide essential words of comfort for men who are sad. They can read characters of people very well, much better than men, so they can pick the best for a task. They understand what motivates people, and motivation is everything.

Written by Per. (c) 2018

Regarding the situation in Ukraine, one must remember that long term motivations is a factor that is important. We want to teach people to work for a leadership that plans and looks ahead. If people know they cannot flee from a bad situation, they will be more motivated to work for bringing safe futures for themselves and thier friends and family. If people know they can get asylum, they might just ditch efforts to plan for a thriving future. The religions that speak of grace and mercy of God motivates people to behave bad, since they in their hunt for their desires and power feel they can steal, maim, torture and murder to get their short term wish through, knowing that they will be forgiven anyhow. This behaviour will possibly go on in Heaven, and turn Heaven into Hell. Heaven with its magic that may be realized by [black] prayer, is even more dangerous, since hurt by magic is so much more a potent weapon than weapons in this world this was written. It is important that people realize that life is no game, and there are no easy solutions like just fleeing a situation, asking for asylum. If there were no asylum in the world's countries, people would work out deals to move out of troubling areas, like an insurance. 2022-03-10 18:53

If you let in foreign people with a uniting different culture, when they outnumber you, they take over the power, the country changes, and you will be potential slaves to their cruelty by the now powerful, foreign,to you as history of takeovers show as seen. 2022-05-01 12:03

Why is people that are sceptical on letting strangers that suffer in your house more hated than people that is the cause for distress of the strangers that suffer; I believe it is human inherentness in cowardness, people with no power are hated since it is safe, while people that are dangerous are respected even if they are the cause for strangers suffering and cause for refugees, if assylum rights was abolished, there would be more unity of offensive action at those causing distress, even climate change that is happening soon. 2022-07-25 21:05

Shall we not help people in distress, if we can? We help people, in the long term, best by showing and sharing information on how to organize a successful society. Letting in different cultures, changes our successful culture, and in the future, we might not be an exemple of culture for to others to copy.

It is well known that people that are very homophobic, probably are homosexual themselves, believing "if I show my distaste for homosexuals, none will accuse me of being homosexual". In the same way people that indirecly bost on how good a person they are, for example by arguing on helping everyone and anyone as refugees, are evil in their heart. I personally, with great arguements, know of people who have in secret poisoned innocent people with harming substances, such as cancer causing substances, just because they could agree on a target, it seems, if you talk about goodness, you have an urge for evil, as seen. 2022-10-19 17:51

In democracies the majority rules. It is forbidden to give up. To forgive or to reconcile is giving up, since all is about power, and forgiving and reconciling is giving power to those who hurt you, and they will be encouraged hurting you again to gain power since they noted that they were forgiven last time.

The world is full of failing cultures;
Full of wailing vultures;
Seeking an easy way out;
I want Paradise on Earth, they shout;
Though I am going to keep my way of life;
I want Paradise on Earth people to respect my knife;
Soon enough, Paradise on Earth is the same Hell they came from;
Paradise people said, if we only could see this future come;
2022-10-24 19:01

Borders are necessary

Background

The national state concept is only a few hundred years old, and therefore also borders between nations. With borders between nations, it follows that each nation has an immigration policy, since without this, the border notion is mute. The reason it is mute, is that no border policy is the same as free immigration, since people can move into the area without obstruction. Emigration from a no border policy nation is possible only if other parts of the world allow for immigration to that area.

There is a romantic notion in some people’s minds, that the world would be a much better place without borders or nations. A one world, a united world, serve all, love all. The song “Imagine” by John Lennon, has this romantic notion popularized.

If planet Earth is divided into nations, as it is now, should we do as the song “Imagine” states, namely have no nations and no borders? After all, no reason to fight wars because of nations, seems very attractive. A united world where all are friendly. A united world where all are respected with a place to live, enough food, clothes etc.

Speaking in pure resource notion, of planet Earth, this is viable with today’s population. There is enough productive farmland to feed all, food being the most important aspect of them all.

One can generally say that all people have a good in them, but the fight for power makes us evil. The fight for power is the main cause of violence. “Much wants more! ” is a saying. This truth does not go away with an Earth without nations.

Another truth is that people get bored, and people sometimes amuse themselves by hurting other beings.

People conspire in order to reach objectives such as gaining power; this is another truth.

These three truths of human nature make the world a dangerous place. In a dangerous place, some are victims. Do you want to be a victim? Do you want your spouse to be a victim? Do you want your children to be victims?

In the light of this, what kind of world is safer? A world without borders, or a world with borders?

A world without borders

A world without borders, means that one government controls the whole world. Just as a nation today has one government, the same is true for a one world. You may say, as long as the one world has democracy, this is ok.

Stalin once said, “It doesn't matter who gets the most votes, what matters is who counts the votes.”

This is the main risk with democracy. A democracy in a world without borders, is so much more exposed to pressure to corrupt the election process, compared to a democratic nation among other democratic nations.

The reason a world without borders is exposed to so much more pressure to corrupt the election process (compared to a world divided in multiple democratic nations), with the conspiring objective to win power of the world, is just that - all power of the entire world is at stake is a powerful motivation to conspire to corrupt the election process with the purpose to win all power.

There is a concept called “confirmation bias”. There is also a deep urge in humans to follow the school. We are like a school of fish. Just like fish has evolved a property to be in a school of fish, we humans have evolved to be social and follow the will of the group with its leadership.

The reason fish has evolved to be in a school of fish, is that it is advantageous, in the aspect of surviving long enough to produce enough offspring, to be in a school of fish. The main reason individual survivability is advantageous in a school is that predators only eat until they are full, sparing the rest of the school of fish prey when they are happy being fed, and they have to spend much more time to find fish if their prey are in schools, rather than spread out evenly in the water, where they will find their prey and feed more quickly. Historically this is true, but now we have trawlers, making being in a school of fish hugely disadvantageous, but genes is biological memory, and the school of fish behavior is deep in gene memory so it will take a long time before trawlers change fish instincts.

There is an evolutionary survival truth for humans to organize into groups and be in the interest of the group.

Just out of interest, I may say that beings mate and produce offspring because of evolutionary mathematics. If a couple have four children, one child will have none of new small advantageous traits of the father and mother, one child will have an advantageous trait of the mother, one child will have an an advantageous trait of the father, and one child will have both an advantageous trait of the mother and one advantageous train of the father. Because of the lucky fourth child, advantageous evolution is so much quicker, compared to producing offspring on its own.

Also,the financial concept of “interest on interest”, relating to savings in a bank, is applicable to biological evolution. In this way, a very small advantage of say 0.001% advantage makes its way into genes many generations later because of the same financial concept. The formula for interest on interest, is as follows. Final_Growth = (1 + interest/100)^years; the same concept is true for biological evolution, with our example of 0.001% this means in 2000 generations we arrive at 7.38%..

Today, we humans do not live in the same environment as our historical past when the genes were formed. This is due to technological evolution. Medicines, weapons, information technology are all game changers. Just as trawlers change the conditions for schools of fish, technology changes the conditions for us humans.

This fact of technological reality, means we cannot rely on historical conservative knowledge, as we used to do before technological revolution is a reality in human evolution. We cannot rely on traditions.

Therefore we cannot assume everything will be fine in one world without national borders.

Just as there are prey and predators in the world of animals, we humans have psychological traits of prey and predators. Some people, because of genetic diversity, are prey, and some are predators. The prey type of people are like sheep, with non conflict as the main characteristics, formed as a result of historical biological evolution, being an advantage to the group. The humans who are like predators are also there as a result of biological evolution.

Predators like to take risks. Predators can “smell” where much is to gain and weigh against risk. A one world without national borders, all power concentrated in one government, is a high stake win that predators are attracted to.

The mindset of sheep and wolves are drastically different. This is true of their human psyche counterparts. Therefore one cannot rely on humans of the sheep psyche to advise the government on security issues. One needs wolves to work in the interest of shaping a secure world.

A one world without national borders is a big no-no, if you want to live in a safe world. This is because of the extremely high return of investment of gaining all power in the world in one coup d’etat. Together with the predators, formed by evolution, because of diversity is advantageous to the tribes of the world.

Diversity is very important in a group. The reason we have genetic diversity of human psychological traits is because historically in biological evolution, diversity was an advantage to the group of people. As long as we discuss and agree on a decision. Discussion and submission to the decided outcome is also in our genes. Due to genetic traits we have different personalities. Pessimists, optimists, analysts, impulse people, sweet people, bitter people, thorough people, quick people, effective people, conservative, revolutionary, right wing, left wing etc are all there since one size fits all types of people are not just there. To a commercial company, there is a real advantage to having a lot of different types of people as staff, and asking them to discuss and compromise all from their own aspects of a viewpoint, arguing their case in specific issues. Imagine people in groups a thousand years ago discussing how to solve issues. If all people were genetically right wing, they would miss aspects of people who are genetically left wing. The same with optimists and pessimists.

While we are into biological evolution, I might add that pain is there for the body to report damages to the body to the brain. The brain controls the decisions of the body. Damages to the body must be avoided, and with pain the brain remembers bad previous decisions and therefore is more careful. Memes (individual culture in brain memory) may form out of experiences of other people of what causes pain.

The reason we get depressed has the same reason as pain, to be an evolutionary advantage. It is the brain’s way to start thinking that something is wrong, and therefore we can think of how to not be depressed anymore. For example if we socially lose something, like a former friend now despises you, we start to think and want to find the reason why we are depressed, and therefore we may solve the problem and become liked by the former friend and therefore become friends again. Also if something is damaged or destroyed, we may get first angry and then depressed, and start to think on how to find a way to solve the crises, or ask for help from the group; especially if we lose a child or spouse we may need the group's goodwill more than ever.

The clinical depression in psychiatry in some people may just be nature's way of having depressed people in the group discussing issues, and compromising and then reaching consensus, possibly. Or is it just a genetic mutation of too much natural depression?

Why are men stronger physically than women? This is also a result of biological evolution. In families where the spouses are equally strong, the risk for physical fights are so much greater, and therefore wounds or death, and this is negative for the offspring. Evolution's solution to this is to make human women less physically strong than men. Thus there is a submission of women to men. No fights, therefore greater survivability of the offspring. Note the reason women are less physically strong may be because of chance, there might as well be the same outcome of less fights, if women were physically stronger than men.

Why do I talk so much about human evolution? It is important to be aware of a genetic history, since otherwise we will be ignorant in a world that has another environment than we were formed out of.

Why open borders are attractive to many, is a genetic trait, that we want diversity? This runs deep in our feelings.because this has historically been an advantage. This is the reason a lot of people want high immigration numbers. This is about feelings that runs deep, it is not so much about arguments. Our feelings form arguments, we must be aware of our motivation for our arguments, which are rooted in deep feelings. For example, we may say that immigrants are useful in taking jobs in health care or whatever, the reason we make this argument is rooted deep in genes that we want diversity of human traits, and therefore a motivating deep feeling makes us make this argument.

We need to understand our feelings rooted in genetics, to survive as a species in this very different technological world.

With the technological world we live in now, these feelings may not be to our advantage anymore.

Our genetic motivation forming our feelings to want diversity, leads us to want open borders. With open borders we basically form a one world without national borders.

One world without national borders, is basically the same thing as power concentrated. National borders with strict immigration policy is a way to form a world devolved in natural power cells.

If we have a liberal (generous) immigration policy, this is leaning towards open borders, and open borders are leaning towards globalization.

A world with nation states

Because of technological evolution, old traditions may no longer be applicable. Technological evolution is a little bit like biological evolution. It builds on past knowledge, as memes or written knowledge in the case of technological evolution, or in genes, in the case of biological evolution.

The case of financial interest on interest analogy described previously is also applicable to technological evolution. A new detail in technological improvement, lets say it’s 1% advantage in the first generation, has the advantage of (1+0.01)^2 the next generation. The reason being that the first generation has gained a capital advantage of 1%, and next generation builds upon that 1% historic capital advantage and 1% again, thus (1+0.01)*(1+0.01) = 2.01% total capital advantage.

In biological evolution, the capital advantage of the above example is represented by the percent advantage of the heritage line in the number of individuals. There is an advantage for the heritage line to be represented by an increase in similar individuals, since they are more likely to spread the genes if they are overrepresented by say 1% more. Thus the overrepresentation of individuals of 1% and the historic 1% advantage of survival represented in genes to produce offspring is 2.01% in the next generation, with similar interest on interest as the example of technological evolution as above.

Thus as described in above reasoning, both technological evolution and biological evolution progress with an exponential rate. As described elsewhere, the power of interest on interest can be exemplified by the red Indian that sold the land Manhattan in New York, if that red Indian has but that money on a bank with a certain normal interest, and let the interest on interest work its way, the amount of money on that bank account in year 2000 would equal the land value of Manhattan this modern year.

Technological evolution is much faster than human biological evolution. Thus the instincts represented by feelings in humans may no longer be applicable and useful, since the human environment due to technological evolution has changed so much.

Case in point, we have an instinct that urges us to let new foreign individuals enter our realm. The diversity instinct is powerful. This instinct causes us to have feelings that motivates us to argue and reason for open borders. But logically, as reasoned previously, these feelings may not be up to date when it comes to a safe environment in the new technological reality.

The technological reality of today and future years is a game changer of colossal proportions. The technological reality makes the world much more dangerous, since technological tools may be used as weapons. And new weapons change the world, just as guns and rifles changed the realm of people using spears and bows.

We live in a much more dangerous world today because of technological evolution. Case in point is bio-technology.

To divide the world into cooperating self governing independent nations with borders, makes the world more safe. The reason is that this construct devolves power naturally. A one world without borders concentrates power, and this motivates conspiring predators to take over the power by technological weapons. Further, when the world power has been taken, and then secured, the power may be bored, and thus amuses itself by abusing and hurting individuals terribly.

Critique of the asylum system

Those that behave badly in regard socially to others are often rejected, criticized and frozen out by their community. Thus they want a better life. Because of this, many of them become refugees and seek a successful country. Thus you have a selection of bad people compared to the general public. Naturally, this is not true of all asylum seekers.

If you are in a bad school and the headmaster says, if you start fighting among you, you will go to a much better financed school. Free books, free computers, excellent food, better teachers, nicer schoolmates etc. What do you think the headmaster's words do to the motivation to keep peace? This is an analogy to the asylum system. If you live in a rough country the asylum system motivates for civil war, or just war and destruction. Thus the asylum system can be argued to cause people to be motivated to fight.

All cultures are not equal in value to its population. The nazi culture can be considered to be bad, for example. Bad culture causes rough living for its practitioners and thus refugees. Through the asylum system the bad cultures spread to nice cultures, and thus also become bad. This is because many people are too proud to change their culture, or if they have been breast fed with this bad culture, it is very hard to change. Majorities decide in democracies. Thus when asylum migrants are in majority, they change the culture of their new country. Remember, this is important, there is a reason for refugees, countries are defined by their inhabitants, not so much the land itself, for example some countries that are very successful have limited natural resources, and some countries with lots of natural wealth are very bad. Mainly the culture decides if a country is good or bad. The bad culture is in people's minds, and when they migrate they keep the bad culture, when they are dominant in numbers in their new countries after decades of years of asylum migration the new host countries become bad too. With the asylum system the bad cultures spread. Thus the very reason they flee, which is the bad culture they have in them which defines the country they come from, is the reason the new host countries will turn but after decades of refugee migration. Do you really want all countries to be bad? Then, surely there will not be any nice countries to flee to.

If one imagines that the entire world of people were made of the same race, then I would still argue against the asylum system. Bad cultures and bad people are not dependent on the race, but what you pick up from others as knowledge when you grow up.

The asylum system can be argued to be non-future proof for independent nations, since in the near future, technology such as machine wombs will probably invented (maybe assisted by Artificial Intelligence), and in democracies the majority win in elections, and nations that mass produce new babies and let them grow up and learn their culture with this artificial way and then they will simply replace the indigenous population of countries with the asylum system.

Note, work related migration is very different from asylum migration, since work and asylum have different reasons people migrate. Asylum migration is due to bad culture, while work migration is due to a wish to work and do right in the new country.

Since a good or bad country is decided by its population, bad countries move with their feet when the bad culture population migrates and the bad countries expand their territory.

To me it's sad to see horrible extreme right wing parties exploit people’s migration worries in nice countries. Life is no game, one cannot just let the right wing parties hijack this issue. Normal centrist parties should adopt a healthy re-look at the asylum system. Naturally international law needs to be changed too.

Mitigating the bad

Some parts of Earth are very bad. Some people live very bad lives. We want to reduce refugee flows. We need to analyze the reason for refugees migrating.

The reason for asylum is,

Fleeing from war
Being persecuted from
(i) ethnicity
(ii) political activity
(iii) sexual preferences
(iv) anyone due to criminal government
(v) religious preference
Harsh deadly environment

Remember that people applying for asylum and getting them granted are not safe in their new country if they are being persecuted by a determined enough criminal opponent. This opponent will and can hurt the asylum refugee anywhere in the globalized world. Thus the asylum system does not work for really persecuted people.

The best way for the governments of the good places that people flee to, is to better locally the bad areas of the world. Eliminating the cause of refugees.

But for this to work, the good places need to remain good places. If all good places of the world become bad, what hope do we have then of bettering the bad places?

If the asylum system remains in the international law, then it's only a matter of time until all countries of the Earth will become bad.

How do good countries better bad countries? The priority is to motivate the people of bad places to better their country. If the asylum system is there as International law, then the best people of the bad countries may not be motivated to put in an effort to better the bad country, it is easier to become a refugee. If people know they have to stay put, then that is a great motivation to put in an effort to better the bad country.

Good countries must be seen as an example of how to organize countries. The good countries must therefore inform bad countries how they should organize society.

Knowledge of many types but not all (e.g. dangerous weapons), from good countries to bad countries should be there.

A collection of arguments for successful nation states

Anne Frank is famous for her diary (wikipedia it). She was a Jew, who wrote in a diary about the atrocities by the Nazis. She live in a home of people who wanted to protect her.

Now imagine the Nazi had a campaign of knocking the doors of people, looking for hidden Jews. They would ask a simple question, “Do you have any Jews here?”.

Now if they knocked the door of the home of Anne Frank, what would the residents answer. If they would be good Christinas, they would always speak the truth (ten commandments), and say “Yes”.

Or would they say “I do not want to answer that question”.

Or be silent and close the door.

All these responses would cause the Nazis to search the premises.

The right answer would be to lie, smile and say “No, of course not, I hate the filthy Jews.” This would save her life. A lie would save her life.

USA a peaceful nation?

In the Vietnam war 7M tons of bombs were dropped by USA. In WW2 the allies dropped 3.4 M tons including TNT equivalent of the two atomic bombs.

The busiest airport of the entire world at the time was Da Nang. 3000 sorties daily.

It is a freaking mystery why Vietnam won over the major super power.

I would like to remind you of a quote of the famous Swedish author August Strindberg,

"All that is good is not good, and all that is evil is not evil."

Do you understand the implication of this important true quote.

Think about the following quote for a while,

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (St. MATTHEWS. 7:12, KJV) This is a horrible rule because of its consequences. If you are a bad man, and you hurt others, then you would like to be forgiven (this is what you want other men to do to you, be forgiven). Thus this rule tells this man should forgive those who hurt others.”

What I am most impressed by religious fundamentalists is their strong faith. This is important to stick together. In the future when Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes commonplace, and along with psychological expertise in this AI, people with power will try to reason their way through with the help of AI. If you have strong religious faith, you can resist this, for the betterment of you and you fellow religious community

Even if you don't believe AI will become reality, there are very smart people out here with psychological expertise who will serve the current power to convince people along their lines.

Thus faith is important.

You may consider the existence of the country of Sweden as a fact. But an American who has never travelled outside USA, and believes the map books are just a big conspiracy, may not consider this a fact.

Facts are just what you believe very strongly personally.

You may say we should not consider delusional people. I say this. Some say Jesus was delusional. Others say he is God. The fact is that he may be God. Thus God may be delusional. Thus what delusional people think may matter to you personally.

The interpretations are facts. It is up to everyone to decide what they consider hard facts of life. E.g. Lemons are yellow most would consider a fact. However some people may disagree pointing at exceptions. Another fact some would consider a fact and other not, is "Completed suicide kills you" (those who believe in religious next life might not agree with this)

Thus what is a fact or not is up to everyone to judge on.

If you deposit money you have to pay money to deposit. With a negative interest you pay for the safety of having the money stored there. The motivation for negative interest is push people from storing money at a bank and instead invest directly into companies, since the relative return on capital is increased (but the risk is higher to invest in companies usually, compared to save money in an account)

Secondly, if you have very low inflation or even deflation (thus money becomes more worth with time) then the relative loss of lending money is less than if you have high inflation and higher interest rates.

It is part of Keynesian economics theory of monetary policy, you lower interest rates to stimulate the economy and increase inflation, even to the point of having negative interest rates, if necessary.

As long as people have work ethic, are healthy and have a acquaintance network; people can do without banks; people used to survive even without money, as history shows.

Even if it is chaos in the banking world, people can start their own local "banks" among family and friends enabling loans, and transactions. All you need now to create a bank is a computer connected to the internet, the right software, and some trust.

Currency wars between countries each wanting to give help to the exporting industry is similar to trade union wars. Each union strikes in order to raise their members' pay in relation to other unions. In other words raise your own members' pay but let us keep the others union's member's pay the same otherwise you will just have inflation.

Measures to lower the value of the currency (such as QE and lowering interest rates) and thus making the exporting industry happy, will only work if other countries don't do counter measures. Measures such as QE from one country followed by other countries, will lead to inflation pressure.

The history of creating money out of "nothing", comes from Italy.

Italian "banks" where you could store your gold, got the idea that instead of lending the gold stored, you could make a paper slip of the right to the gold in the storage. Thus it was more convenient than moving the physical gold. Soon this paper slip became valuable, and was traded. This was the origin, I believe, of paper money.

Soon they discovered they could make the same paper slip to multiple parties for the same gold in the safe. Thus they created money (the paper slip) out of nothing, since they relied on that people would not claim the actual gold. They got an interest from lending this paper slip, and this is the historic beginning of lending money out of nothing.

The harsher the society, the more torture will be accepted to fight terrorism. The harshness of the society is mainly dependent on the common culture. A nation should have one culture; the historic national successful culture. For people to cooperate within a nation it should be monocultural. If they want to experiment with multi-culti, they can do that elsewhere.

Let me present the “The ideology of the Nation state”.

A nation can be defined as a physical space with people in it defining and protecting its borders; the nation can say who are welcome and who are not, the nation can say who can stay and who cannot. The main defining aspect of a nation is some owned space and the protection of this space.

In this nation, there are people who are the enemy of the nation. These people (the enemy) want free immigration or mass immigration, usually with the compassionate argument that those people outside the nation should be granted a safe haven. They look superficially at how others suffer, and want a quick fix to their problem, so they can immigrate to our nation.

What they do not understand is why our nation is a good place in the first place, or why places outside the nation are a bad place. It is mainly about culture. The reason our nation is a good nation is because of our historic good culture. The importation of alien cultures, which comes with the people that immigrated, changes our ancient culture. Mass immigration even more, necessarily.

The effect of these enemies within the nation, is that in the long term, our nation becomes one of those bad places like the rest of the bad places of the world, as a consequence of mass immigration and the resulting culture change in the nation.

A fair question to all those compassionate short term feeling empathy and panic among those in bad outside nations or places, and wanting to relieve their suffering by importing them, is: “Do you want all places on Earth to be a bad place?”

Those with bad cultures have more physical conflicts and suffering, that is the essence of a bad culture. With these solidarity brothers in good culture nations (the enemy within), this bad culture spreads, since the bad cultures produce refugees and they and their culture move across borders and are accepted with warm arms by the alien culture huggers (the enemy within) and thus more and more bad culture enters our nation.

Is this so hard to understand?

Do you want all the worlds to be bad? The more good nations stand out as a high living stand nation, the more pressure from people fleeing to this nation; and this fact changes the good nation to become one of those other bad nations. Think about it. We need controlled borders.

Bad is more violence, more torture, more terrorism.

Let me tell an interesting valuie, in priority order,

1. Right people

2. Right rules/policy

3. Right business ideas, products, growing market etc

If you have the right people following the right rules then those will get you the right products into the expanding markets. A good name (trust of the consumers, takes care of its employees, supports its employees in difficulty if they deserve it, etc) attracts the right people since competent people want to be motivated to work under and support its colleagues with productive work, and thus bring in the bacon to the company.

A bad name is definitely not going to help with motivation ("Why should I help bring in the bacon to the bad people"). A bad name does not sell to the consumers either. A good name is definitely preferred

As a general principle in maintaining a good name and thus attract good competence and thus proving my theory to be true, is keeping the company decentralized with many small sub and sub sub companies (and so on sub sub sub etc), and each sub company votes for management, where this management does not have all power; thus devolution of power and democracy within.

The same thing we can see in politics. As another commenter said, "The people I want for politicians don't want to be politicians, and the people that want to be politicians I don't want as politicians" This is a dilemma for businesses too.

The problem with good name companies is that they attract power hungry bad individuals who want to ride a ride using the name. When a bad individual is at the top of a good name company, very bad things can happen. Since the momentum of trust of the consumers carries the bad individual captain(s) like a fully loaded oil tanker in the seas. This is a serious problem, do you have any suggestions how a historically good name company can push away bad individuals in management?

The safest investment is usually a company with a good name. A good name attracts good competence naturally and therefore a positive spiral develops; the company stays competitive because of the good people in the company, and the good people remain in the company and attracts more competent people because of the good name.

The ultimate good name company is a company that has the good name as the main asset. This can be, for example, a company that certifies that the content that other companies produce is valid, accurate and true. In these days where videos and photographs can be faked, internet pages can be customized to individuals, the consumers need trust. They trust in the certifying body. This is especially important if you have misbehaved historically and fooled people. Now you can rely on the certifying body. And prosper because of this.

Let me give some good advice when it comes to evil.

1. If evil has been proven, expect their will to even more power over you through evil

2. If they want something from you, don't fold, this will just make things worse, not immediately, but in the long term

3. If you get to choose from a limited discomfort and a potential eternal discomfort, choose the limited one.

4. Have faith in the good and that good people genuinely want to limit your suffering if you deserve it, out of self interest in the good name and that they want to help themselves..

1. "This is the way we do it in this nation, if you want to change the Constitution policy, move to another nation."

2. "This is the way we do it in this party, if you want to change the policy, move to another party."

3. "This is the way we do it in this constituency, if you want to change the policy, move to another constituency."

4. "This is the way we do it in this company, if you want to do it another way, we sack you."

5. "This is the way we do it in this friendship circle, if you want to do it another way, you are not our friend anymore."

6. "This is the way we to it in this family, if you want to do it another way, you are not part of this family any more."

I will give you some advice as to get to the millions (not lottery)

* Follow the law

* Get some partners in business

* Get around and talk about business plans

* Either copy a successful recipe or bet on a new concept

* Do a marketing strategy

* Find unique selling point(s)

Every mouse and rat has to consider this,

"I like the smell of cheese, Is it a trap or is it not a trap?"

If you are in a lager house of cheese, is it a trap?

If you are in a house, and you are looking in the dustbin, is it a trap?

If you are on a road, and the road carries lorries to a cheese factory, is it a trap?

If you are in a shop, selling cheese, is it a trap?

If you have been noticed by house owners that you are there, be very suspicious.

Traditional African women values include but not limited to the following

* picking and choosing among characters, and reading the characters correctly

* communicating values, facts, ideas

* tradition bearing (that is what we always have done)

* pointing out unacceptable behavior

* organize and gather (food, ideas, values, information)

Consider the term considerate self-interest. Are they incompatible?

No. They are not mutually incompatible ideas.

Imagine a birthday party for children at your house. There is a cake. The pure self interest for Jill (your kid) is to carve out a really big piece of the only cake. The self interest is to have a large piece to eat, and scorn at others who get much less.

Enter considerate. Bob will hit Jill if she takes a too big piece. So she becomes considerate of this, in self interest.

One of the profound things that I have learned in life is that life is imperfect. If you want something good, you always get something else not so good in the baggage.

That does not mean all choices are equally bad. You still have to value and balance each "deal" you get. For example, if you have a choice between pestilence and cholera, you choose the disease that you are immune to, or the disease that you have access to curing medicines to.

There are still best choices.

If your choice is between a small apartment near to your job, or a larger apartment long away from your job but costing the same, I would choose the small apartment, since I would have less travel time.

It is all about values.

Economy is dependent on 3 things. 1. Initiatives by individuals or existing companies. 2. Finance of these initiatives by investors or own company money who believe in these initiatives. 3. Law and order so that financers can have trust that they will get a return of capital in their investment. Imagine a future internet service. A database of business ideas, new aswell as old, sent in by the public for a reward if an actual business is created or the business idea is used by an existing company. Anyone can be inspired by this database and start a business, and pay the business idea contributor a share of future profits. The public can see videos, read presentations by these prospective businesses. Existing businesses can be inspired by this database, as well.

A white list and a black list is helpful to quickly guide people to safe choices. Naturally those making the lists should be trusted. For example, one can forbid sale of all chemicals (or release of all chemicals into the environment) except those that are on a white list. This way new chemicals that are dangerous are blocked from harming the environment as a pre-emptive measure. Further the problem of circumventing law against narcotics with designer drugs is solved.

Do you remember your time as a child? Children's societies, such as in schools, to a certain degree, are much more naked to the truth, since children have to learn the role playing that takes part in adult societies.

There was always a bully. All is about power, in child societies too. As long as you obeyed the bully and his friends, you were fairly safe. If you did not, then there were threats and harassment, until you complied. If you did not comply, then there was a real fight, that could get you hurt. This same basic truth in child societies is still true in adult societies. It is just that we have a surface of civilized behavior. The behavior is civilized as long as there is competition for power, no-one wants to show their true colors.

But do not be fooled by this civilized state. As soon as there is a winner of eternal power, then the true colors will show. It will be horrible.

The EU has not achieved eternal power yet. But when, and if it does, then the EU will not be civilized. It will be back to child societies again, with the bullies and his friends. Who is really delusional? Who are fooling themselves? And others, along the way.

Self-esteem is really, I mean really important. With it comes self-confidence.

You do NOT get self-esteem by telling yourself in the mirror that you are really valuable. That does not work. You do not even get self-esteem by someone else telling you that are really valuable. You will only get an inflated ego. You WILL get self-esteem by proving to yourself, through actions and conversations, that you are valuable.

Your children will be helped by telling them that they are stupid, since then they will be MOTIVATED to prove you wrong. Children are children, they will not break down and kill themselves, by you telling them that they are stupid. Quite the opposite will happen to normal children, they will get into fighter mode, and say NO, I AM NOT STUPID AND I CAN PROVE IT!

Note if you have sensitive children that have a psychological condition the advice I gave may NOT work. As a caution.

Perishable goods are goods that perish. E.g. TVs, toys, food, what is called consumer goods in a broad context.

Land does not perish like consumer goods. Land and real estate generate an income for an eternity, basically. Once the consumer goods are used up, you are left with nothing, while land ownership is still there and generates profits.

Ownership is all about power. If you own, you have some power. If foreigners own land and real estate, they have power.

Consider for example more and more people renting their homes rather than owning them. These homes have been purchased by foreign rich owners. Then they rent them out. Thus these foreigners get a steady income from their ownership for an eternity, while the TVs that they sold us are non functioning after 10 years or so.

Do you understand the trade here?

On Free Trade

What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question is “What is best for our country?” Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing. At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.

The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors’ money or loans.

When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities, the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.

On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses, demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.

What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities, private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market, after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents, keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.

In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market (and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don’t be stupid.

Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you import more than you export. Therefore your nation’s business will have an easier time to sell and export. Thus there is a natural balance.

But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money and the currency value will stay the same.

Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.

Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.

Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation’s long term resources, all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In our nation’s own interest.

Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

The left is all about equalizing resources. If you can get a good standard of living by just accepting the right to a more or less equal share of the resources, what incentive is there to work hard? Equalizing resources has an inherent negative effect of motivational structure to produce quality on an individual and group level. You just get the same quality of living of a hard worker as by being lazy. To clarify, the paycheck you get for contributing works in two ways, motivationally. First it is a sign of weighted measurable appreciation, secondly you can buy wanted goods and services for the money which works as an indirect appreciation motivational structure to pursue happiness. The key is appreciation; you can do without money in a society (as was the case with primitive societies), but you cannot do without appreciation (at least you have to appreciate your own work to yourself) in a minimizing harm motivational structure society (slavery is an example of motivation through avoiding personal harm). Whether we currently live in a minimizing harm society or not is up to debate; you certainly are supposed to get harm if you do harm, you also are supposed to get harm if you do not pay your legal share of the taxes. As always, it is all about proportions and balance to judge this. Of course, the opposite of appreciation due guilt, shame, blame, object of anger and humiliation is a reality and sometimes motivated to form an appropriate motivational structure. Absence of this can be seen as a silent appreciation. If you get equal amounts of appreciation regardless of contribution, will that not have detrimental effects on motivation to contribute with quality? In other words, to say “I do not care for contributing, even though I am capable.” should have a cost to it. Emotionally or materially.

However distribution of wealth and resources is needed if we want to avoid social unrest, and further distribution of resources leads to a higher sum of living standard of the population because of the fact of mass production to produce another house cheaply and efficiently gives more benefit to the sum of individuals than servicing the rich sweeping pools (which lacks the mass production productivity gain). There is a solution. Rather than focusing on equalizing resources, we can give each and everyone an equalized opportunity to work and contribute quality and get compensated with an income accordingly, through the private enterprise market system. The government grants this equalized opportunity to all individuals, but uses the private enterprise market system to produce wanted demanded goods and services, and the individual sees its effort and smartness in the paycheck.

The extreme form of leftist view is communism or socialism. You may think that this takes away all the envy in society. This is wrong. The opposite is true, more envy occurs than in a government regulated tax collecting market economy. What happens in communism is that those with contacts and friends in political power get much more benefits than the rest (who of course envy those with contacts and friends in political power). Better meat in the store. Better houses. Better cars. Better holidays. Better and more money spent on parties and celebrations. In a market economy, you can simply say “Fuck them!” and then try your own wings with a new business, or finding a mate that can give you a job. This cannot happen in communism. Simply because you cannot start your own business. And that mate that might give you a job in a market economy now has to be considerate of his or her reputation with those in political power. You simply cannot go your own way in communism. There is of course a gradual change to socialism depending on the highness of the tax rate. 100% tax is the same as communism and 0% tax is a completely unregulated market economy. A compromise seems to be the best, since the extremes are communism or private monopolies with time, both of which is not desirable.

Raising minimum wage as it is called in the USA or as it will be called in UK 2016, National Living Wage, has the positive effect of equalization and attracting a large voter base for the politicians realizing it, without increasing the national budget deficit, as would be the case for benefits doing the same equalization.

The reason for this is that the businesses pay for the equalization through national law. This causes a budget strain on each business, putting pressure on the business to be careful with wage increases for the highest paid in the company, since the wage budget is the same and the lowest paid get an increased share of this budget.

Since this strain is applied to all businesses in the nation, no single company within the national law will be able to compete for the most high paid talent by rasing these people salaries out of proportion. They all have equal rules, and the budget is the budget.

Thus equalization. Too high minimum wage will just cause inflation, though. There needs to be a balance.

To guide the people, I have written a short story, to be seen as a vaccine against future bad events that could happen.

The people had an assembly. They had gathered the smartest of the smartest. The elite in computer science. The goal was simple, take over the world with the best computer with the best hardware and software. The AI project was inspired by the Terminator movies.

They built the computer and designed the software. They booted the computer. Everything went well, and the people hurrayed. Soon the world will be ours. The computer had an internet connection.

The computer applied for a bank account and got one. Soon the computer started in betting sites, and won a lot of money. The computer started trading in stocks, futures and won a lot of money. Soon the computer realised that the people could pull the plugg, or change the software by the computer operator. The computer hired security staff, to make sure that didn’t happen, and payed them well. The computer started to divide the people. A quarrel started. “We should pull the plug, but we can’t, the computer is starting to take over the world, but we the people are not in on it.”

As things developed, the people started to hate the computer, but they could do nothing about it.

The people were always harping on the same string: “Why did we have to make the computer so good?”

Say no to racism.

Racism is pushing down certain people and raising certain people only because of their race. Thus some people get critic on not what they are as a character, no matter how well they behave, no matter what good manners they have, no matter how prudent and wise they are, no matter how well they judge proportionally and balanced, but critic because of their biological heritage, their genes as a group of people, their race.

Thus a white person that is a real disaster as a character might get more respect than a black person that behaves flawlessly. Is this right? Is this not a big problem?

The issue is motivation to BEHAVE well. If white people get a free ride of respect simply because of their race, what motivation do they as a population have to behave well? If black people get condemned regardless of behavior, simply because of race, what motivation do they have to behave well?

Do you see the issue? We want a good society, and in a good society you get judged by your BEHAVIOR, since this motivates people to behave well.

If you get a free ride because of race belongings, or get condemned because of not being part of the "master" race, behavior in society deteriorates. IS THIS CLEAR?

It is better to do a non-fatal wrong and admit it and correct it, than to do a non-fatal wrong, deny it and stick to the error.

Of course, if you change your mind it is a signal that you have admitted wrongdoing.

Then again, it is better to do right in the beginning and then stick to it.

By making extreme statements, we can learn something if we argue for them. "If you aim for the stars, you might reach the moon."

Zero refugees immigration, is this viable?

1. By taking in refugees, we actually worsen the situation in the world. This is due to motivation. They say, "If we fight instead of building up our poor country, we might be refugees and can live in Europe." Thus by Europe allowing for refugees we motivate people to fight each other, as a conscious "understanding" (but not outspoken), or subconsciously.

2. By having a zero refugee policy, we thus motivate people in other countries to sustainable peaceful progress and cooperation, since they cannot simply leave the sinking ship, but has to make sure the ship floats in the long term. This simply because of the fact that they know they cannot flee to Europe.

3. Peeing in the pants feels warm and nice in the beginning, then it becomes cold and uncomfortable. By allowing refugees as a way to feel good about ourselves' generosity in the short term, one could make the situation for our grandchildren bad in our own country. And worsen the situation in the world as just explained in (1) and (2) above, in the long term.

4. It is not about racism. To be an English racist in this world of 7 bn people is plainly stupid, what if Africans, Indians, Chinese learn from you and become racist towards English.

All is about power. Therefore propaganda (from the church, political camps, interest groups) has always been a reality, since the opinion of people, affected by the propaganda, is directly linked to power.

Is the Internet going to mitigate the propaganda by power poles or worsen the situation? After all, people can form their opinion from wider sources, but on the other hand, the Internet can be manipulated.

Remember there is a way to analyze voice data, to see your emotional content, thus listeners to the voice can see if you are lying. The same can possibly be done by analyzing fine timing of keystrokes when writing.

Stupidity can really cause a lot of evil.