November 11, 2025

BBC Scandal

Posted by rautakyy under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , |
[4] Comments 

What Orwellian times we have reached? The “leader of the Free World” is threatening one of the most reliable broadcasting companies in the world with a law suite for immence sums of money as a compensation for blaming him for a riot that he did instigated in his own rally where he did literally lied to the mob, that his defeat at the elections had been a fraud, and did nothing to stop the riot until the violence was all over, since the democratically elected representatives had fled the scene of the Capitol. The legal case would be totally built on a technicality of double speech, like something out of the George Orwell novel 1984.

Did the BBC treat Trump unfairly, presenting in one particular documentary how he told his followers to fight and march to the Capitol, when at some point he also said something about doing it peacefully? After complaints, they have now freely admitted to having done so and not only apologized, but a couple of their top brass directors have resigned. It appears, that these measures are taken by the BBC leadership to mitigate the damage to the public image of the company, by a prolonged court case and a contunying debate, wether who is responsible. Time can only tell are such moves enough to save the day.

These events were prompted by a report from an independent observer into the BBC conduct, that the BBC asks precisely to retain it’s integrity. The list of other complaints was about subjects, that are political talking points of the far-right, like immigration being a problem, not being presented enough on BBC, or how the reporting on the Gaza war is one sided and even anti-semitist (exept of course anti-semitism in the right-wing talk today is equated with any criticism of the current corrupt, Fascist and extremely right-wing government of Israel, rather than the traditional anti-semitism from the extreme right). That there was not enough equality of views represented.

Equality of reporting does not equate objectivity. Reality owes nothing to our different opinions, ideologies, or values. Imagine Putin raising a court case against the BBC for not presenting an equal enough view on his actions. He has along the years leading to the full scale war in Ukraine also a few times said that he wanted a peacefull coexistance with Ukraine, has he not? Does that mean, that it was not him who started the war?

It is interresting how the same people who just yesterday loudly demanded freedom of speech, now in power, go after precisely that. And how large crowds, groomed by the yellow press to be ever hungry for scandal, go for it like some bloodsport, appalled by the high salaries of the directors of a broadcasting company (but only when it is publicly owned). As well as those vengefull at it for telling unnerving stuff, like the climate change being factual, or their everyday racist attitudes being immoral, or Israeli war crimes actually happening, now feel vindicated.

What next? Can the BBC be further undermined by a report and an ensuing courtcase about how their treatment of the moonlandings has not been “balanced” enough, for not presenting the opinions and views of people with foilhats as equal to the scientists?

This reminded me of a story about my grandad living here in Finland a country alligned to Nazi- Germany during WWII and secretly listening to BBC news, though it was strictly forbidden under pain of being prosecuted for treasonous action. He was not only interrested in some balanced view between two different war propaganda sources. He wanted to know what was really going on and the BBC could be relied upon. Now the reliability of the BBC is under attack and quite purposefully too. This time the Fascists taking over do not want an objective eye to be taken as a reliable source of news by the masses of people around the globe. Trump could hardly win a court case against the BBC, but the challenge alone has done it’s job. Undermined the reliability of the mass media in general, thus making people more reliant on their social media, conspiracy theorist podcasts, and ultimately their gut instincts i.e. their various prejudices. Remember, Trump has been on a war path for a long against the so called “mainstream” media, because he is a liar.

 

September 17, 2025

Brexit

Posted by rautakyy under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , |
[4] Comments 

The Promise

When the campaign for Britain to leave the EU was going on there were four distinct promises made what good this divorce would bring to them.

1. The money spent on the EU could be redirected to the national healthcare system.

2. The Economy could boom, by making trade deals with former UK colonies including the USA.

3. Fishing industry based on traditional indipendent small fishing boats could be saved by driving other similar fishing fleets coming from other EU countries away from the British waters.

4. To stop the cheap labour influx from the eastern Europe, and in general terms stop immigration.

The EU

When my home country Finland voted for joining into the EU some three decades ago, I was in opposition, because I was bloody annoyed at how it was marketed to us. The price of alcohol was supposedly come down and it would somehow shield us from the Russians. I thought, that altough the price of alcohol was high, bringing it down would not help our alcoholized nation, proof of wich was in the fact that this was unashamedly used in persuading people to vote yes. I also thought, that the Russians were far more likely to try to conquer more recently lost territories, than Finland, like for example the Baltic States and Ukraine, and that they would not care much about the EU, if they decided to go to war. In addition, I thought other much more imminent and profound consequences of joining up were not nearly enough discussed in public.

Russia

The one thing I hate even more than being wrong, is being right. I was right about the Russians wanting to conquer territories lost in the brake up of the Soviet Union. It just took them longer than I expected. Of course there were these two wars in Chechnya in between… so. In the end nobody thought the EU was going to shield us from anything when the Russians turned out to be aggressive once again, and we and the Swedes fast paced to NATO. If not for anything else, just to spite Putin for trying to controll the fates of neighbouring nations. Now, that the NATO has proven to be a bit of a house of cards, as the White House has been occupied by the best Russian agent ever (who, propably – the poor sod – does not even know it himself) we have become one of the main legs NATO stands on, because we – unlike most other NATO countries have not let our military crumble into highly technical, but miniscule expeditionary toy armies. And we still sit right beside the second largest city in Russia.

The Referendum

Why was it, that there needed to be a vote about the UK separating from the EU anyway? It makes no sense. I guess the Conservative Prime Minister Cameron, thought he was going to save his party and himself from losing power, as right-wing extremists had been gnawing his party base, by floating this super-conservative and vague idea of past glory and indipendence of Britain at the head of it’s own global empire. Such are conservative illusions more often than not – absolute nonsense. Perhaps Cameron thought along the lines of the British both too conservative and too complacent, or simply too smart, not to go for such an absurd suggestion. In reality, however, the people had a lot to complain about and they voted in protest.

Aftermath

The promises have one by one proven to be bollocks.

  1. The National health services are struggling. Of all the money given to the EU previously, none have found it’s way to the common causes like universal healthcare. Oh no. It was needed for tax brakes for the rich. These were supposed to speed up economy, as in accordance to rhe right-wing fancifull ideological nonsense concocted ages ago to justify greed.
  2. The economy has survived the crisis, that the Brexit created, if you do not count the loss in GBD and growing unemployment. Or the fact, that foreign investment in the UK has radically diminished, while industry has moved out. Most such investment came from the EU, and much of the production has found new home from there too, or from China. The idea of deals with the old colonies was nonsense. It forgot that Britain no longer is an empire and that in negotiations with giants like the USA, or indeed EU – the closest and most natural economic companion of UK – it is the giants who set the pace and terms.
  3. Fishing in UK national waters could be limited to only UK based ships, but the real problem is not small fishing boats coming from France, or other neighbouring countries. It is that the Fish have no interrest in national boundaries. The big industrial scale fishing ships in international waters are depleting the seas of their fish. They harvest the seas faster and cheaper, albeit less ecologically sustainably, than the smaller local vessels. And there is ever growing demand for cheaper food even on the isles.
  4. Immigration from East-Europe has diminished, but grown exponentially from the former colonies, namely the Caribean, Africa and crisis areas of the world. All the fuss about some 30 000 illegal immigrants almost ridiculous compared to 700 000 legal immigrants. Though in London hospital workers have reached the point where they need food aid, situation in many countries around the globe is far worse, so newcomers will continue to come. They are not intimidated even by seas, but brave the waves even in tiny rubber dingies.

Tragicomically enough, one of the main architechts of this disaster whose lies led to it, Nigel Farage is still as popular as ever. He continues spreading xenophobic hatered at the immigrants. His words are heard by people who’d sooner blame everybody else, than themselves for the trouble they are in and the immigrants just happen to be in a vulnerable situation and perfect scapegoats. Such vile Populist propaganda spreads partly also because the real reasons for the distress people felt and that prompted them to cast the protest vote in the Brexit election have not been adressed, and now the Brexit itself has made many of them worse off.

 

September 4, 2025

Immigrant Song

Posted by rautakyy under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
[2] Comments 

An increble piece of rock music by Led Zeppelin. It has a particular rythm, that effectively emulates the sound the long oars of a viking age ship. Wether intentional, or not, it sets cold vibrations along the spine of someone like me, who has had the experience of rowing such a ship.

The song could be percieved only as a pompous tale set in the heroic age of vikings, and as such one of the precursors of an endlessly repeating theme in later heavy metal music genre, but I find deaper meaning. It does not go into describing heroic deeds, or fierce battles, rather takes a completely different turn. It speaks of the necessity for peace. About how the English and the Saxons would need to accept as their neighbours the immigrants, even if they were the worst imaginable sort, like fierce and wild Vikings with strange religion and customs. How hatred and violence has to end – as it historically did.

The thing about immigration is, that it is hard to manage and nigh impossible to stop. The reasons are simple. One can put up all sorts of fences to stop people from moving, and these obstacles may easily create a false image of control, but in reality the immigrants, such as the Vikings braving the North Sea and even the Atlantic in their open ships, are not stopped by mere fences.

Today innumerable amount of people try their luck to cross the Mediterranean in tiny dingies. Many die.

Immigration happens from countries where the conditions have grown so bad, that people are persuaded to leave their beloved families and homes. Enough so, that they travel great distancies to countries, they do not know, speak the language, understand the culture and may even abhor the local religion. This means, that only way to stop migration to your country would require making it such a horrible place, that nobody wanted to move there. It seems some anti-immigration oriented politicians are actually doing what is in their power to make their countries horrible, but it may be this is more out of incompetence and stupidity (hence their chosen stance on the issue at hand), than an actual plan to spoil everything for everybody. Some countries have actually achieved being too horrible, like North Korea for example.

I may read too much to a song, and even shamelessly ad on stuff, that the band never thought it would stand for, but you know, I do not care. This is my subjective take on a piece of art. A journey of discovery and interpretation.

 

May 22, 2025

Masculinity

Posted by rautakyy under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , |
[6] Comments 

It would appear, that when young people are seeking their identity, they may be open to influence. Be vulnerable even, to all manner of attempts to exploit this treat in them. It is tragic, because it means these young people can be abused in this manner precisely because they are seeking a way to grow into someone, that would not be abused, often by the very same culture of competition and exploitation, that presents this model of assertive dominant manhood, as a means of evading other such men. I speak of young men in particular, because I was once one.

There are a diversity of models for how to be a man offered these days, as opposite to how it used to be. Many, it seems, are pining for the simpler ways of the past. People of all ages present views, that masculinity is lost because what they see does not fit some preconception of theirs.

What do people expect when they demand “be a man about it”? They certainly do not mean you need (to be) a dick. What they are saying is behave like an adult. Carry your responsibility and do not present the issue at hand like it was all just about you, as a little child would. Despite this being more like an archaic and a bit obsolete turn of phrase, it should not be too difficult to understand. Still, to a lot of guys being a man seems to be exactly the opposite. As if having a particular set of dangly bodyparts gave them the right to evade responsibilities by putting up a show of agression and to be treated like some very special princess around whom the rest of the world should revolve. Have you noticed this?

I remember when, as a youth, I got my drivers licence I noticed how many guys of my age tried to hide their poor driving skills by presenting a front of over comfidence, wich led them to take a lot of unnecessary risks. Now, decades later, I notice men of my age in particular, and other adults as well, still behaving according to the same patterns in traffic, as if they were priviledged to not be bound by the same rules and respect for the wellbeing of others, as the rest of us. I have heard the same excuses they make for their poor traffic manners over and again, and they are not that different from the excuses they make for their lack of manners here in the internet, or otherwise in life.

To me it would appear, that the concept of masculinity is filled with all sorts of frivolous nonsense, from “boys don’t cry” to aggression and violence as natural and therefore justifiable part of life. Not the least of wich is how some people expect it to carry particular priviledges. A sort of cultural baggage, explained as supposedly natural by biology, because it is common in human cultures to assign priviledges according to might makes right rules. However, it is both a deliberate misrepresentation and just a common mistake. Strength means ability and capability, both of wich morally add to responsibility, not to priviledge. This is, of course, morally simple, but not self evident to all, because a multitude of priviledged individuals in positions of power have, throughout history, tried to bend social morals from common good towards their own benefit and thus created this unhealthy tradition.

In reality masculinity is indeed about strength, this may cause some people – expected to represent masculinity by their sex – a pressure to over emphasize a presentation of what they think is a show of strength. The misunderstanding about this revolves, in my opinion, around subconscious fear of not fitting in, or even not being anything, if not showing enough of what they think is masculinity, and strength being a type of contest, where you have to overpower others to prove you have it. But you do not become nothing, if you are not masculine. Over half of human population is not masculine, yet they should be appriciated just as much as human beings, for us all to feel better, unless of course we are damaged individuals, who are so insecure, that the suffering of others lends us satisfaction by knowing oneself not to be in the worst position. Then we are in a position of equal responsibility towards others, just incapable of enjoying it.

Strength – the real quality of it – is not measured in how well do you adapt to fit in, or how you are not counted among “losers”, but in how well do you dare to be yourself and lend strength to others in need. Much of such strength shown around us does not come from masculine individuals. Wich means masculinity is not a synonym to strength, only a sub-type of it referring to physical strength coming from a certain type of hormone output, but only when it is used in a particular way in connection to emotional strength not bound by those same hormones. Masculinity is thus an overemphazised and largely missrepresented phenomenon in society.

Masculinity can be a good thing, that provides a healthy base of identity for some young men to build on, and it may make the society a better place for all to live in, if that is the sort of masculinity we want to offer our youth.

 

March 5, 2025

“Peacemaker”

Posted by rautakyy under politics, religion | Tags: , , , , , , , |
[14] Comments 

It would seem to me, that the public discussion has totally neglected the previous achievemens of President Trump. He has appeared on the world stage previously, during his first precidency, and even then his main efforts were around ending war and bringing back peace.

President Obama recieved the Nobel peace price much for nothing really. What was it for peace, that Obama achieved? Trump on the other hand brought Israel and some of the rich Arab countries into negotiations and negotiated the withdrawal of the international forces from Afghanishtan, wich finally brought peace to the country after decades of war.

Trump would want to be remembered as a peace maker, and in a way that Colt revolver known as the Peacemaker is a good analogy for him. It is a weapon steeped in the myth of how the Wild West was pacified. It is also a very real part of actual history in wich capitalist cattle lords ruled over streches of wilderness and small towns by violence and might makes right logic extorting the small time settlers and farmers. Native people lost their livelyhood, as the buffalo was exterminated, their freedom, as they were confined into reservations, their identities, as their cultures and religions were destroyed, and finally their lives when they were subjected to death marches, famine and diseases. The Peacemaker “single action” is a small caliber sixshooter, that could spray bullets faster than almost any gun before it. You could hardly hit the long end of a barn from a couple of yards away with it, but it was succesfully used in robberies and for shooting in the back by “desperadoes” – literally desperate poor criminals. For such an innefective pistol, it has a mythical fame, and in the wrong hands it may cause havoc, death and suffering.

It was widely blamed on Biden administration, how catastrophic the US retreat from Kabul turned out to be, but it was Trump who had made the deal about the withdrawal with the Taleban. Had he actually won the elections, he would have had the exactly same (obviously achieved in a haste after the US military was trying to adjust to the new situation of full retreat) intelligence at his disposal. That is, if he ever read any.

The pacification of Afghanishtan was a gift from Trump to the Taliban. As a gift from one authoritarianistic religious Nationalist movement to a nother authoritarianistic religious Nationalist movement, as obvious as can be.

The USA lost the war in Afghanishtan precisely how wars are lost. They negotiated a peace in wich they gave everything to the enemy. It is neither here or there, that typically the hasty panicked retreats come before such negotiations, not after. Trump saved money for tax exempts for rich people like himself. The final losers of his deal, the women and the fledgling democracy of Afghanishtan mean absolutely nothing to him. This is because he comes from an overtly competetive culture in wich the losers are deserving of nothing. So competetive is his cultural heritage, that pretending victory is seen as better, than ever admitting defeat.

I suppose it is this cultural taboo, of becoming a “loser” is being seen as some sort of losing face and becoming a total pariah, that clinging on to victory and trying to illegally gain victory to cover the defeat, is why so many people were willing to vote for this conspiracy theorist back to power despite the obvious lies he was repeating about the elections? That his immoral behaviour was only natural?

It is like Trump feels himself ever in competition with Obama. He, rather embarrasingly repeated the lie, that his inauguration drew more audience, than that of Obama’s. His second inauguration was moved indoors to save him from the shame in this rather silly issue. Perhaps his attempts to create peace stem from that source? To get the prize?

Trump’s other famous diplomatic achievement negotiating a deal between Israel and some of the oil producing Arab countries was shadowed by his move of the US Israel embassy from Tell Aviv to Jerusalem. It was terribly impractical move, since the Israeli government did not move along, but it was mainly a symbolic gesture meant as a nod to the American Fundamentalist Christians, but it was also a symbolic insult to Muslims, and a pat on the back of Jewish extremists wishing to drive the Palestinians out. There were bound to be reprecussions…

In my mind there is very little doubt, wether these moves by Trump administration had an impact, that partly caused what has happened in Israel and Gaza during a little over the past year. USA validating Jerusalem as the true capital of Israel and Arabic nations coming to terms with Israel at the same approximate time made the Palestinians feel abandoned. All the while corrupt Israeli prime minister Bibi having come to a political dead end and unable to form a government without extremist racist Jewish groups, meant that (having come to infamy and power, by not being the guerilla organization, that laid down it’s arms in hope of the two-state solution, like the PLO) Hamas felt pressure to act. Act big, and they did.

The chain reaction of events that ensued is testament to the amateur diplomatics of the Trump administration, led by a “businessman”, who takes high risks for short term personal interrest. Doing things the way diplomats traditionally do is because they understand the risks involved. Could Donald have prevented what happened next in beforehand, if only he ever read those pesky reports on his desk? Maybe not, but he would propably not had even tried. He is a wild risk taking businessman, who has no empathy for the suffering of others, honour, nor morals for that matrer.

Today he is back to his old antics, as if he learned nothing previously. Now he wants peace to Ukraine, even if it meant giving in to all demands of Putin. It is just like with the Taliban. A gift from a religious Nationalist to a religious Nationalist – from Trump to Putin. Never mind the Ukranians. Trump has already vilified Zelenskyi and all of Ukraine along, for not wearing a suit, or not saying thank you often enough, or something. He has called Zelenskyi a dictator and then totally forgotten about it. This calling people with nasty names , but then just forgetting about it, as it never meant anything, seems like a policy of the Trump administration. Even vice president J.D Vance has once called Trump Hitler. I guess it meant nothing, but how are we now to know when they mean something when they open their mouths?

Trump has been compared to Hitler many times, but I think unfairly. While Hitler did all those horrible things, that Trump could not, even if he tried, the clear motivation behind Hitler’s actions was, that he appears to have genuinely believed to be acting in the best interrest of the German people. Trump’s motives on the other hand appear quite clearly be only in the best interrest of mainly just himself. Am I wrong?

 

February 5, 2025

In Defence of Hitler

Posted by rautakyy under politics, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , |
[19] Comments 

I never thought I would find myself doing something like this, but as this has gotten ridiculous, I feel compelled to defend Hitler.

A while ago Alice Weidel the leader of the extreme right-wing political party AfD (Alternative for Germany) was interviewed by Elon Musk, the richest and one of the most pitiful men in the world. When asked about Hitler, Weidel claimed that Hitler was a Communist. No! No, he was not! Has anyone from history been ever as badly misrepresented? Not at least by anyone in as high in politics. Hitler was and is the best known and most profilic Anti-Communist ever!

Now I do not know wich of them is the bigger nitwit. Weidel for claiming so, or Musk to have accepted this ludicurously false claim, but it makes me very worried, if this idiocy has no backlash among their supporters. Or does it actually tell us a lot about the understanding of the crowd they appeal to?

The party Hitler lead was called the Nationalist Socialist German Party (NSDP), but you should know, that it was the party name when he joined in. He was planted to this new radical group by none other than the German military intelligence and was paid to spy and manipulate them. He soon took over and after that all about Socialism that was left in the party was in the name, if it ever had had any other meaning, than marketing value. He hated Communism as ferociously as he hated the Jews and often confused the two with each other. We have it on record in a multitude of speeches he held and in the very book he wrote. He made good of his plans by arresting all known Communists and Socialist right after reaching power. These were sent to concentration camps long before the Jews. He even began an attack on the Soviet Union though he had not much of a chance winning a nation with so much more resources, manpower and industry than his own. Perhaps he truly believed in his own stupid propaganda, that his people were superhuman, and that Communism had rendered the Soviet industry inferior in every aspect, but that just goes to show how committed he was to his ethos of hate against Communism.

This false rendering of one of the most known and documented historical personas is not just a silly mistake, but an alarm bell for things to come. It tells us loud and clear how important the understanding of history is. How historically ignorant people can be led on paths, that take us all to dark places.

Only a bit later after the aforementioned interview Elon was making the Nazi salute in front crowds. When confronted about it he remained eerily silent, but a bunch of sympathisers and fan-boys rushed to defend him, saying it was not what it clearly looked like. So, if he did not mean to make THE Nazi salute, why did he? There are only two options as to why he did it. He is either a Nazi, or an idiot. If he is a Nazi, does that mean he also sees himself as a Communist, since he just previously had accepted the claim Hitler was one?

Wether Elon Musk is a Nazi, or not, he is an idiot. You might think it unreasonable to call such a visionary and a rich business man an idiot, but not all visionaries and richest businessmen are anything very great as human individuals. Mussolini was a visionary, but in hindsight would you give him political power? Henry Ford was a true visionary and extremely rich, but he supported the rise of the Nazies with considerable sums of money and shared the prejudices of Hitler. (Was he secretly a Communist? Of course not.)  The Assad family is fantastically rich, but would you call them intelligent, let alone wise, just for their money? I mean, they could have long since retreated from political life filthy rich and possibly be revered by future generations as great statesmen for giving Syria democracy, but they just had to sit out to the bitter end, commit crimes against humanity and finally be driven out as exiles (to Russia of all places – at the mercy of Putin). How short sighted was that? Single minded self interrest may lead a person to fortune and power, but that may still be moronic. Wisdom is not measured in money, or the amount of lives one has altered. Only idiots count it in these terms, often obviously trying to patch up some form of insecurity they try to cover up.

Oh, by the way, just to be sure. I am not defending the ideology, or deeds of Hitler. They were thoroughly corrupt and wrong. He was a deeply disturbed individual who was given power and who abused it in extremely horrific ways by threatening neighbouring countries with military interventions, then attacked other sovereign nations, gambled his own nation’s safety, enslaved millions, had even more systematically murdered on industrial level, committed countless war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and even genoside. The fact, that he was traumatized by his experience in WWI, or by the questionable methods of child rearing of his time do not buy any pity for him. He was a monster, who was allowed to lead the world into a catastrophy.

 

January 10, 2025

Would Jesus Sanction Ethnic Cleansing?

Posted by rautakyy under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , |
[61] Comments 

I have often enough heard this thought expressed: “What would Jesus do?” I suppose it is meant to keep Christians moral by following his example. Now, the Israelis are not in general followers of Jesus, so I guess they are not to be expected to follow his lead, but a lot of Christians around the globe, but particularly in the USA are in full support of Israel and indeed their efforts to conquer all of ancient Israel, even when that means violence, theft and the murder of thousands of innocent women and children. Why?

Jesus as a character in the New Testament can be seen as a controversial figure. However, the main lines of advice he is attributed to have given to his followers in his lifetime seem moral enough, from treating others the way you expect yourself to be treated, to selling all your property and handing out ALL the money to those in need. Some of his advice may seem unpractical and even radical, like do not have children and if someone violently attacks you, turn the other cheek. Not many Christians – despite all their adolation of him – follow any of these pretty unambiguous advice. So, even though there is hardly anything in his teaching, that would suggest he would have been fine and dandy with blatant evil such as ethnic cleansing, it should not come as a surprice, that so many Christians come up with the most heinous excuses for the actions racist far right-wing government of Israel comes up with in trying to remove the Palestinian Muslim and Christian (!) population from the occupied territories and exploiting them as cheap workforce in the process.

It has been suggested, that Israel is thus fulfilling some prophesy in the Bible, apparently bringing the world closer to it’s end and that this would be a happy occasion to Christians for they would survive, while the rest of us would perish and even suffer eternal torture in some form of afterlife. I have even been told that the political and military action Israel has taken to fullfill this goal is a manifestation of the god both Jews and Christians adhere to. But it is not. There is nothing supernatural about any human efforts. Not even when they are working to achieve the will of a god in a book.

The Bible itself is a collection of ancient stories and as a moral guideline appears to allow through “interpretation” a wide variety of behaviour models from moral to the immoral. Any ideology can be twisted to selfish goals, let alone one derived from this particular set of stories and fairytales. I am not even really interrested wether those Christians who believe Jesus is OK with the killing of little children, or the ones, who would claim he never would have condoned it for any goal (even Biblical prophesies) are right about what the Bible has to say about it, because it is irrelevant in regard wether it is right or wrong. This is so, even if there exists some creator god whose (fairly feeble) attempt to contact and guide humanity is this particular book. A creator has no ownership right to sentient beings. Right or wrong are not dictated by the whims of any gods, rather they are defined by what benefit, or harm they may cause.

 

November 4, 2024

Why Was Jesus Executed?

Posted by rautakyy under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , |
[41] Comments 

Was it because of sedition? That was why he was crucified. It was why this particular method of execution was chosen, as it was used against seditionist slaves and even lower class Romans, just as well as insurrectionist subject peoples. But Jesus was not an agitator for insurrection, or sedition, and far less did he engage in any. He was accused of one, but even the ranking Roman official found it hard to see him as guilty. Jesus did not want to incite a rebellion. Quite the opposite. He was a peacefull fellow, who recommended you pay your taxes. When asked about the issue, he pointed out, that the picture of the emperor on the coin tells who issued the money and thus has the right to recall it again. The emperor represented the state, not just themselves.

Sedition?

Even according to the Gospels the Roman commander Pontius Pilatus literally washed his hands from the judical murder the Jewish priesthood demanded him to commit. They were held in high regard by the grand populace, while Pilatus only had a small garrison in Jerusalem. The nearest legion was in Syria and needed there. The job of Pontius Pilatus was simple – keep the “Pax Romana” in this tiny client state. He chose to please the local priesthood, instead of inserting Roman supremacy. So, the official reason, as long as Romans were concerned, was sedition, but it was not the driving force for the priests to demand Jesus should be killed. Nor did it motivate the Romans do a very committed job of this particular execution, as is evident from the fact, that Jesus was kept on the cross only for one afternoon, he was given so easily to Joseph of Arimathea and even his legs were not broken.

Blasphemy?

Why were the priests so angry at Jesus, that they wanted him dead, even if it had to be with false pretenses made to the Romans? It had to be humiliating for the priests to have to ask for the execution of this layman preacher from the Romans and in doing so to acknowledge the superiority of the Empire in ruling the land, and the lack of the authority of the priesthood and the temple. It was not an everyday event, or routine for them either. So, why the hatred? The popularity of Jesus may have played a role, because the priests were not likely much moved by some layman dissident, disagreeing with them on some of the details on scripture interpretation. They may have felt jealous about the crowds, but hardly saw themselves threatened by a carpenter turned to a preacher. They held firm position in the society all powers that be granting them protection, and general conservatism (that is always at it’s height on unsecure times), not to mention the law securing their position. They were unlikely affraid of Jesus, or any other new and radical movements, that were plenty at the time. So, were they sincerely outraged by some sacrilidge by Jesus? What? He emphasized, that he was not going to alter the law and religious tradition of the Jews.

Son of God?

The priests seem little impressed by the stories about the miracles performed by Jesus. If they thought any of these were reliable and factual, surely they would have, at the very least, been much more cautious about seeking to condemn and get Jesus executed? Had they not examined the miracle claims thoroughly, or had they? It was their expertise to read and interprete the scriptures, but they did not think Jesus was the messaiah. Some called Jesus the “son of God”, but the priests knew the scripture and knew this term to mainly refer to men who kept the Mosaic commandments, so to them it was not sacriligious in the sense a lot of his later followers from Romano-Hellenic culture sphere misunderstood the honorary title.

Prophesy?

Jesus not agreeing to run from the arrest, even though he appears to have had preminitions about it, seems to make him a willing participant in the events leading to his execution. As if he wanted to fullfill some ancient and obscure prophesy, but is it not a lot more plausible, that he simply understood, that running would nullify his own core message about relinguishing everything, ownership, ambition and even family ties, in order to become a better human being? If he had run, all his talk about turning the other cheeck, would have become null and void. The entire prophesy explanation seems more like an attempt to make sense of the events afterwards, and to provide meaning to what would otherwise appear as a frustrating experience. The sacrificial blood may sit well in with the religion of goatherders, but in real world makes no sense. A god punishes himself with a few hours of agonozing pain and death before resurrecting himself to atone for the wrongdoings of a bunch of people, who have heard of this feat and appriciate it, most often due to cultural indoctrination to assume it was worthy???

Comparative stories have been told throughout the history of man. Spartacus fought and died on a cross for the slaves, the downthrotten and the poor, whose position was to labour and suffer for the benefit of the few priviledged wealthy, and their henchmen – the “middle-class”. Robin Hood and Stortebeckker stole from the priviledged rich and gave to the poor. Both of them were bitterly hated.

Commmunism?

As the story spells out, without the mumbo jumbo, but considering the cultural context in wich it was set, and the other cultural context it was written down in, there appears one clear motive to execute the Jesus character. It is the collective conscience of the Temple priests. Central to the teachings of Jesus was, that he challenged the justification for priviledge. The priviledge of possessions and wealth, as well as the priviledge of some ordained priesthood to speak on behalf of gods. The conscience of the priests told them he was right in an ethical and in a moral sense, thus their reaction was emotional, bitter and extreme. It was also dishonest, not least toward themselves.

The hatred towards Jesus, by those who really wanted him dead, is not unlike the one expressed today towards the likes of Greta Thunberg, for the same reason. They stand up and point out priviledges of the few, that cost the majority their quality of life. It is the conscience once again, that comes nagging inside the head of the priviledged. Who need to kill that little voice with anger, in order to protect their fragile identity built on (convinient) lies, from what they know within their innermost to be true, because they do know what actally is fair and what is not.

Priviledges are often built on lies. Lies about how the priviledged are somehow entiteled. The more outrageous the priviledge, the more outrageous the lie. People lie to each other, but abowe all themselves, to justify why it should be fine, so they would not feel bad about grabbing extra they do not need, from others that suffer from need. People tell us priviledges are OK, if they are earned by being born in a certain country, colour of skin, or just a particular family. Or having an education, that depends on being born into one of the abowe. Such lies are typically ridiculous at a closer look, but serve the greedy as long as no “Commies”, or any “Jesus” appears to laugh at them. At wich point they will violently lash out, and if their position of priviledge is real, with dire consequences.

 

October 17, 2024

A Strong Leader

Posted by rautakyy under Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
[3] Comments 

What is a strong leader like? People yearn for strength in their leaders to pull them through thin and thick. But how does a leader demonstrate their strength?

There is an election in the USA soon for the leadership of their nation. Both competitors have held positions of power before. For both of them, their strongest claim appears to be, that they are not the other. One of them gains media visibility by making the most outrageous claims one after the other. It seems, the content of his words has been lost in the flood of scandals. As if all publicity was good publicity for them.

Why is it, so many citizens of the USA are willing to grant so much power over their own lives to this obviously ignorant bully? Is it leadership they seek in him?

The phenomenon is not unique. Populism is the bane of Democracy. Trump, Putin and Hitler in his time, have certain similarities. The appeal to the crowds through the promise of making their respective countries “great again”. As if there was a return to some golden past when their countries were mighty empires coloured by nostalgy. The claim, that any of the problems within their own societies, and some imaginary ones to boost, are the fault of outsiders and minorities. The appeal to “traditional values”, patriotism and religion. None in the trio make an impression of being sincerely spiritual, or patriotic. God is just a tool to get the support of religious people, while patriotism seems to equal loyalty of all others to these individuals. “Traditional values” equal all sorts of persecution of minorities.

Just the other day Trump said he would want to use the military against his political opponents. Now, unless these opponents had launched a violent attempt to coup power from elected representatives of the people, that statement would turn me off from casting a vote in favour of a candidate, even if they represented the political party I favour, no matter what else that candidate had promised. For some reason it seems not to bother the supporters of Donald Trump. That is, the facts that he keeps making statements like those, and indeed did nothing to stop an open attack on democratic officials, even his own VP, to coup power in his favour for hours after having first railed the crowd against them. Why?

To me mr. Trump appears as a perfect example of the very American idea of “fake it till you make it”. The man is a fake. He rants against the elites, though he has been born into money & power and has been educated in posh schools. I guess there must be a number of both rich and poor Americans who identify to that sentiment from the same reason, of being rejected and ridiculed for being ignorant oafs by said elites. He presents himself as some sort of business genious, when in reality he has had several bankrupcies and peddles sneakers and watches. He makes a lot of noise about immigrants being a threat to the country, but is married to an immigrant. I guess people think he must have first hand experience of the problems caused by immigrants. He lies almost pathologically and makes up these ridiculously unplausible little anecdotes he keeps repeating. Why would anyone see him as a leader? What sort of model for authoritive person must his supporters, or anyone willing to vote him really, have? Where did they get this twisted image of leadership? Did they all have a toxic relationship with their fathers, or what made them think this dude who has yet to accept and admit to his loss in the previous election, or any failure, mistake or misdeed, would be a worthy leader?

Is it something else, than leadership the voters want from Trump? Some of them see him as a counter movement to many changes in western society we are currently undergoing. Some feel their freedom of speech is being violated, by demands for verbal abuse of vulnerable minorities to be condemned. To some their own gender identity seems extremely central, in a way that, if anyone else questions the issue, these people lash out. Racism and homophobia are major motivators to vote him, but of course if a person is bent in those issues, then it is not a surprice, that also their image of leadership is unhealthy.

In my view a strong leader is the person who seeks to help and defend the weak and the helpless. Like say, refugees. The strength of such a leader imminent in how they do not seek the approval of the mob, or the bullies to protect their common priviledges, but rather seek the benefit for all equally.

 

May 21, 2024

Woke Ideology…

Posted by rautakyy under politics | Tags: , , |
[11] Comments 

…is not really a real thing. Let me explain why. It is just a term mostly evoked by people who think naming some idea, or a view they themselves do not support, as an “ideology” gives it a bad taint, but more importantly want to resist some changes to the society. Changes, that would affect and reduce a priviledge they themselves enjoy, think they do, or at least should enjoy, would want to enjoy, or are affraid/annoyed by similar priviledges being stripped leading to some other more “important” priviledges of theirs – real, or imagined – being stripped, toutched, or even discussed as a result.

 

Next Page »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started