How the great man comes to be (hypothesis):

Once upon a time there was a little boy who was small in heart and tiny. The great men around him (with big egos) met him with big headedness and arrogance that made him feel like he was smaller.

Then the little man went to school and absorbed university degrees and then rank and enjoyed worldly success that all went to his head. Furthermore, in response to the inferiority complex that was partly due to the big headedness of others, he himself began to consider himself a great man (and thus greater than some unnamed ones) and became himself a great egotist and a superman. Therefore, it could perhaps be said that big headedness and egoism in one can encourage big headedness and egoism in another.

And the records fed his sense of greatness and life became one fight of winning fights with others, getting the better off and aiming "higher" which got even more to his head. In all the fussing and fighting, he became an emotionless robot who was guided almost exclusively by his own reasoning and the rule of not letting ANYONE step on him, but in the process became almost emotionless and was unsure of what the word emotions really meant.

Then when he had become both president and prime minister, he began imprisoning journalists who criticized him and firing judges who were not on his side. In the end, he went to war because he would not let ANYONE step on him.

Maybe it's best to see oneself as neither superior nor inferior to others?


A State coffee house - why not?

I have an idea: What would it be like if the state went into the competitive market? What would it be like, if the state, for example had a bank, an insurance company, hospitals, etc., yes and even a state coffee house.

If the state can make money from businesses, in competition with private sector, then why isn’t it doing it for the benefit of the public. I would like to choose if I shop with a private bank (and the one percent) or a state bank (with the public).

Then there would be a mixture of both capitalism and common ownership, where one could choose either or both, as they like.

I would like to point out that common ownership has been successful in many fields, for example in some countries hospitals are run by the state and that system is a lot cheaper than the private health care system of the United States. The major electrical companies in Iceland, which are profitable businesses, are owned by the state and communities and people are generally happy with that and need to pay less taxes. Back in the old days the Icelandic state ran the national post and telephone company and that used to be a great source of income, before the telephone part of it was privatized. In some countries, like in Sweden for example, a large part of the housing market is owned by the communities, I guess it is possible to offer lower rent by that arrangement, (there should be less demand for profit from the community itself than by private investors).

In some countries people are not free to run their own businesses, however with this system you are free to do so, but the state is also free to compete and possibly take a slice of the profit. This system could also possibly contribute to a fairer division of wealth.

I do not know how good this idea is, on the scale from bad to good, but I wanted to mention it which is now done.


Why do some people fear and dislike refugees and immigrants? Hypothesis: People fear themselves......

Some people have it better than other people. Those people would maybe rather buy some unnecessary things than help people who live in garbage dumps out in the world. The rich people fear that the poor people will come and take the wealth and act as they did. In other words they fear themselves. This includes a fear of inequality, but also a racist thought that immigrants cannot prosper to the same extent as the locals or more than themselves. It is also known that those who favour right-wing policy - which usually includes inequality, are usually more opposed to immigrants. Maybe it's because they themselves are most afraid of being underneath. I also believe that nationalism, other religions and “superiorism” can contribute to dislike of immigrants and lack of love?


Af hverju ttast sumir og hafa and flttamnnum og innflytjendum? Tilgta: Flk ttast sig sjlft......

Sumt flk hefur a betra en anna flk. a flk vill kannski frekar kaupa sr einhvern arfa en hjlpa flki sem br ruslahaugum t heimi. Rka flki ttast a ftka flki komi og taki auinn og hagi sr eins og a geri. Me rum orum a ttast sig sjlft. essu felst tti um misskiptingu en einnig rassk hugsun um a akomuflk megi ekki efnast sama mli og heimamenn ea meira en a sjlft. Svo er ekkt a eir sem ahyllast hgri stefnu - sem felur yfirleitt sr misskiptingu, eru yfirleitt andsnnari innflytjendum. Kannski er a vegna ess a eir ttast sjlfir mest a vera undir. Auk ess tel g jrembu, nnur trarbrg og "yfirisma" geta stula a and innflytjendum og skortur krleika?


Similarities with religion and devilism

There are many similarities between the heavenly fathers of the Bible and the ideas that people have about demons. The god is, for instance, a serial killer and his son threatens to send those, who he says do evil, alive into the fire, where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth".

Christians have often acted like Satanists. For example, they burned people alive at the stake and drowned women who committed the sin of having children out of wedlock (which is also special, given that God and Mary were not married when they had Jesus), and they also tortured people in Spanish right of inquiry.

The church has also often been a palace of materialism and has been a great source of money and power. It is well known that it provided forgiveness of sins for payment.

Christian nations have also behaved in a devilish manner, but sometimes their conduct can be compared to Bible examples. The Nazis sent their enemies into the fire, but the Jesus threatens to send those, who he says do evil, into the fire. The United States dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, but the god rained burning sulfur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and destroyed them and their people.

Another thing that resembles Satanism is the animal sacrifices made by the Israelites, and it is also a bit special, when Christians go to the altar and symbolically, drink the blood and eat the body of Christ.

It should be noted that the Satan of the Bible seems rather innocent compared to the heavenly fathers, at least I do not remember him killing anyone. He says, however, to the Jesus something like this: All this I will give you, if you bow down and worship me, but one wonders whether the Jesus does not the same, that is, if you bow down and worship me, you might be granted eternal life - or isn’t that one of the messages of the Bible?

The Bible is a contradictory book. It contains both a message of love and these examples and more, which I have mentioned above. It is for example a certain contradiction in that the god says, in the ten commandments: Thou shalt not kill a man, but he himself does the opposite. However, some positive lessons can perhaps be learned from the Bible, there is a message of love, but I believe it is used to gain religious support, not unlike a politician says something that many can agree on, to gain support.


Hypothesis about the madness of national leaders

National leaders are often great egoists and are in constant competition to be in the lead. It is this competition to be in the lead that drives them crazy – there isn’t room for anything else. Some of them don't know why they want to be national leaders, they only know that they want to be in the lead.

National leaders sometimes imprison or eliminate the opposition and those who might criticize them, judges and reporters, and sometimes they go to war. The reason for this could be that they are defending that idea of themselves, of being leaders, and in order for this identity not to be damaged, they will do anything. They are really scared men defending the idea of themselves as great men and number one and get rid of those who might disturb that idea.

The root of this situation could be a view of life like, not to let anyone step on you. Such a life attitude involves conflict, even a tendency to conflict (to prove oneself) and a certain sense of greatness, because if no one can step on one, then he or she must be number one?

The antidote to this might be equality, emotional awareness, love, conflict avoidance and remembering that fewest people are perfect?


Texti

Einu sinni var maur sem kunni skil rttu og rngu og hann taldi a gu vri sr hlihollur.
Svo var annar maur sem hagai sr stundum vafasaman htt, en hann gat elska alla menn - lika sem voru vondir vi hann.
Vri ekki gott ef maur gti gert bi, haft krleikann og elska alla menn og lka haga sr smilega.

Lj um

Ekki neitt

.


Lj nr. 3

an hitti g Krist

hann reyndi a kveikja mr

en g rtt ni strt

g slapp bili

a minnsta kosti


One type of fascist

One type of fascist, is somebody who has been broken and likes to brake everybody else.


Nsta sa

Innskrning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveiki Javascript til a hefja innskrningu.

Hafu samband