On Norway

Anyone capable of following the largest Norwegian media producer has had the chance of noticing
a late headline read Trump would rather have a slave-owner than a slave on the 20-dollar bill, not
reminding the reader in the rest of the article of the then present commonness of practice of
serfdom throughout the continent the concerned slave-owner and slave dwelled on. This might be
hard to come home to some, so allow me to produce a known comparison with the intention of
devising a parable. Say an orange-toned, contentious politician espousing populistic views in a
phoney, insecure manner will express his discomfort over the idea of placing a vegetarian activist,
rather than a practicing meat-eater who is thus to be replaced, on a banknote of some importance
by the turn of the next century. By that time, the practice of eating meat will have namely become
an issue detested by practically everyone, acquiring the same attribute slavery possesses today. But to
produce a similar headline, replacing slavery with meat-eating, seems to fall apart somewhat since
the individuals in question relate strictly to a time-period where eating other species of animals was
deemed rather alright by most capable of deeming it anything. In addition it would appear
irrelevant to raise the fact that the meat-eater actually was a meat-eater, however prolific. This is
after all not the reason why he or she was placed on any banknote in the first place. I mean, why
would any modern carnivore be placed on a banknote for having been a meat-eater? A president,
an inventor, a discoverer, perhaps even a mogul-like owner of a chain of abattoirs, but a mere
consumer of well-prepared flesh? It is therefore inanities like these that make me sigh as they bring
about abundance of similar instances where that which levitates on the verge of being viewed as
left-wing extremism meets the desire to publicly address a social issue.
Speaking of left-wing extremism, this is another of these Scandinavia-related, enthralling issues. Are
you engaging yourself in an act of extremism, even if you directly do not wreak injurious actions on
those around you? Even if you personally do not massacre some seventy members of a political
youth organisation camping on a slightly remote island? If its not you, but say, your policies, that
are responsible for an increase in number of women raped, killed ? - cause-effect relationship
guaranteed -. Such are the questions that keep me up at night. And I could not be moved by the
boorish nature of the issue so as to research this without any fear of letting out a cornucopia of
sighs. For I consider it an engagement in immensely primitive behaviour to physically influence
another human being to its detriment, e.i. such that it is maimed in other than a merely opinionbased or purely cognitive manner. The fact that Norway gets rather close to a social system that
openly shares my views on this makes me positively content, but do not let it delineate the story on
its own. Approach any Scandinavian multiculturalist and ask them to name facts about cultures
found in Somalia, Poland or Pakistan. The austerity of the deliverance could surprise you, but it
shouldnt. How else could it be so easy to locate a Scandinavian multiculturalist if the whole thing
were indeed culturally motivated, and not in fact politically. Corollaries of this may be found all over
the place, my favourite being the fact that the term ethnic Scandinavian is very much part of the
demotic languages found in those lands.
But - those lands are among the most morally healthy countries in the world, which is also why one
cannot eschew being terse when one does take the liberty to write about their drawbacks. Yes, this is
how far we have made it as a specie so far quite impressive. Should we perhaps outline the
correlation between this very fact and the one that these countries are majority atheist, agnostic, or
non-believing Let us also emphasise another notion these working welfare states are an example
of, namely the one that social systems capable of applying left-wing economically domestic policies
experience considerable improvements in happiness-statistics (compared to less team-player-like

societies that have not been able to reach such levels of altruism), but when having to deal with
somebody who looks to be in need of your help but actually exercises aggressive behaviour himself,
you may provide some of your altruism only to find yourself less happy (unless your paramount of
happiness lies strictly in following a political ideology and not in avoiding ideologies altogether), and
perhaps slightly perplexed. There, there, my blond-haired down-to-earth friend. Were in it together.
But before we set out to set things straight let me impart the reader an encapsulation of the whole
theme. Just because something gives the - indeed sincere - impression of being well-meant, does not
mean that the source of this impression has any special right over others who are not the centre of
his attention. Keeping this in mind let me name examples that ought to be part of this. I would be
concerned if somebody wanted to allow foreign criminals beg in the streets where my children liked
to play hide and seek. I would be concerned if an academic intellectual called for understanding of
underage marriage in my country of origin. I would be concerned if it were understandable for a
politician to feel sorry for somebody who had raped him anally - in my country of origin. And I
would be concerned if cognitive punishment were all fine by an organisation like Barnevernet (yes,
you may scare your child with the idea of eternal punishment, why not), but to impose an
educational cuff on the head or clip round the ear along the lines of a cursory but stringent form of
admonition no, thats certainly crossing the line.
The structure is a bit haphazard, but I think the penny might have dropped by now. Norway is
great, but dont be surprised if you leave it with a mind-set of a Buddhist monk.

10. May 2016, in Stuttgart