If you want to change something, look at the bright side. That was my point about mr. Soros and his focus on the dark side.
Good preachers look to G-d and see his light for what it is; benevolence, love, charity, support, help, solidarity all these words that transcends all that is evil, and boundaries between men.
Bad preachers they look at evil and rages against it. They talk bad, and have a moral superiority towards other people.
Good preachers know that people are full of faults and will do bad things from time to time, but always tries their best.
Bad preachers look at the faults of the man, and scolds him for them.
Good preachers are full of forgiving and love.
Bad preachers are full of hate and venom.
So the same goes for politics. Good politicians are all in for the good in society and focuses on that. Bad politicians focus on the faults of their opponents, and see a moral problem with them.
To win something, you need a positive vibe, you need to come up with new ideas to solve the problems we have.
That is why I believe we should see our world in the light of a benevolent spirit. A, “yes, we can!” spirit of positivism. Ok, there will be many a turn, where people will tell you we cannot. Do not believe them, there is such a thing as goodness and solidarity in the world, there is!
G-d bless the will to look at the bright side of life.
I know that climate change has not been a major point in the current political debate. But, this is one of the strengths of the liberal part, and we should play by our strengths.
After reflecting on the metaphysical and biological content of nature, I think we should also come up with some practical ideas.
If we zoom in on the ideological content of climate change, in the light of an Empedochlean understanding. Nature has to be set free in a way that it will seek harmony. Harmony is about balance of the different factors, and purity. A simple ecosystem has a better chance of working than a complex ecosystem. So what we need to find is places where nature has been left alone and not meddled with. Like the natural parks. These all sit in remote areas where people have a hard time coming to.
We should build on that idea and make more natural parks, where it is possible. And not only natural parks on ground, but also in the sea.
The good thing about natural parks is also, that people can go there and be inspired about nature.
One thing is to talk about it endlessly, another thing is for people to see it with their own eyes.
One last thing, that I think is a problem, and that is with no comparative data to support it, is the vast pollution of the Pacific Ocean. There is a lot of plastic floating around in the sea, and it is a huge problem for many living species. Turtles, fish, perhaps even some of the flora.
This I am not expert in, but there have been attempts on recovering and rinsing the Pacific through different means. That would be a good project to work on.
G-d bless the will to be the caretaker of nature.
When we talk about climate change, I have often been a little sceptical. Because even though nature is a place that I know I go to find G-d, the simplistic idea that all nature is intertwined and is G-d did not seem right to me.
Let me give you an example. When I walked the Camino de Santiago, that is a pilgrimage to a church in Spain (before I converted to Judaism) I had this amazing experience at the end of the walk. The Camino is an arduous trial you give yourself, and in the process of walking you sometimes get revelations.
Just before I reached the final church, I walked through a glade of eucalyptus. It was a sunny afternoon, the birds sang, it smelled of the sweet smell of green eucalyptus, and I just got the most important revelation there in the glade. This was my church, so to say. The glade was the true church, in the sense, that nature in its beauty, is where G-d really resides.
You go back to the whole discussion of climate change, this is really what it is all about right? We revere nature as where to truly find G-d. And we try to protect the creation of G-d against the rape and destruction often brought to nature by mankind.
This is both right and wrong. Right in the sense, that G-d is nature and resides in nature, wrong in the sense, that in nature there is not only G-d there is also destruction and misery.
This is where we go wrong I think. We take all nature as the residence of G-d, and we fail to see, that in nature materialism is there as well.
The dog eats dog process is also what nature is. So taming nature is sometimes to the benefit of spiritual development in nature, so to speak.
To heighten our understanding of nature is, I believe we need another model of it than what we have already.
Nature is driven, according to Darwin by two forces, firstly by the selection of the fittest live within a habitat, and secondly by sexual choice.
These two principles are better described by another natural philosopher, in my mind Empedocles (the same philosopher who invented progressive tax). He says that nature is like sphere, in the centre is love at the fringes is strife. The development of nature goes as a tidal wave between love and strife. At a specific stage there is strife in nature and in other stages there is love.
In a sense it is the same theory as the either-or idea of Kierkegaard. Saying that you either go with your needs (seduction) or with you spiritual self (forgivness). In other words, there is materialism (strife) and spirituality (love) in nature as such, not only in us humans.
This is really the realisation I think we should make. We should not support material and destructive tendencies in nature, but support where nature seeks for love and beauty, in order to enhance spirit in nature.
Take my little glade of Eucalyptus. G-d was there, and I felt in connection with G-d. If we do the same as environmentalists. That is find where G-d is most present in nature and protect those places maybe even enlarge them, we will do a service to nature, G-d and ourselves, because these places will be the most vivid places of worship for us.
But I think we should also make the connection to ourselves as well. Finding spirituality in nature is also about ourselves. We are G-d in the sense, that we have the ability to support at lifestyle that is pure and virgin. If we take that road, we get closer to G-d.
G-d bless the creator.
Well, if we develop something, we need to understand what we are doing, right? If we just do whatever we feel for, it is not really going anywhere constructive. Research and development needs to be based on sound theoretical ideas to work. I mean, if you want to build a house, you need to know mathematics, how the different building blocks should fit, a fair bit about plumbing, electrical work, architecture and so on.
The same goes for political development, you need to know what you are doing, otherwise you often just end up in being sucked into the never ending cycle of dog eats dog.
There are different attitudes to political development these days, but my feeling is, that they rest upon the wrong foundation. Usually it is a late marxist analysis on some economical foundation. I like economics, my greatest succes has actually been to point on to a Smithsonian developmental technique, but this is purely philosophical and not numbers.
You see Marx was more than a capitalist analytical thinker, he was also a platonist. The idea of the commune is Platonic, and Marx followed the fascination Plato had with Sparta, and tried to copy that. The whole idea about a wealthfarestate is really an overblown version of Sparta.
Now, being an ardent neoplatonist myself. I believe that Marx were right in some areas, and wrong in other areas. Marx was a good mathematician, no doubt, but his ideas of political order were not so good as the ideas brought forth in the French revolution. I suppose democracy as an idea was taken already, or something, I dont know.
Now the pure Marxist state has been abandoned by most countries, because they usually end up in a dictatorship and moral coldness.
Why? Because, as I see it, Marx took only the political framework of Plato, and he rejected the ideological framework of Plato. Why is that? Because as Plato were many thing, there was one thing he was most of all; he was a metaphysician, an academic on the theories of spirit.
The keen reader will have a look on the above picture, and you can see Plato in the centre pointing upwards, to G-d.
If Marx had done a spiritual dialectics instead of a material dialectics, it might just have worked. Because the absence of spirit in a political framework will take away the basic motivation of people to do good.
That is really the key to understand modern socialism I think. To understand that the discourse should be spiritual and not only material.
If you take that leap, you will see a whole new world, and actually have a chance to make it work.
I think that that is one of the main reasons mr. Obama was such a novelty, because he on one hand believes in spirit, (hope) and at the other hand believes in the materiale world (change).
This new item of political discourse has not been realised at all at the university level. But when it does, it will create a whole new strain of political debate, and a new beckoning path for people to follow.
That is true political disruption, that is Change.
G-d bless mr. Barack Obama for his new brave ideas.
I have been thinking a lot about George Soros these last few months. There are a lot rumours about him, but after the leak by a lot of emails, it seems to me, that it is right, that he is funding a lot of basically destructive leftist projects.
I have been thinking a lot about this, because when I read about the story of mr. Soros, I just, immediately liked the man. He seems to be a man of great conviction, he has as a bit of the same background as I have had. He is a Jew, and has had some devastating experiences in the second world war. He has these experiences, that he sees as his motives to change the world to a better place.
He describes his method as a strange one, he talks about looking into the darkness and seeing something in there. He learned this in his years as a persecuted Jew in Hungary.
Well, I have the same urge to do something about persecution, finding the bad guys, pinning them out and trying to make people see what they are really doing. But at the end of the day, I do stand on some very different opinions than mr. Soros. I do support the nation, I support all who are persecuted being white, black, gays, Christians, Jews, Muslims. I have no prejudice.
I think I have kind of made out what really is the basic difference of how we see the world. While mr. Soros tries to confront the darkness, I try to pull people up in the light.
I believe, that there is a sense of goodness in all people. And changing the world is to find that piece of good, and make people see it themselves.
I have a long history going back in time working with conservatives of all kind here in Europe. When I started they were absolutely depressed. After some years, they are finding themselves in a position of development and progress. Why? Because I believe, that I have confronted the negative parts of the conservative political baggage and changed it into a positive political development. Where it before was anti this and that, it is now for a lot of things. This being openly Jew.
Now, according to Plato, what a philosopher must do, is to put light into the end of the cave. This being an arduous task.
I believe in the light, and I believe that darkness should not be met with darkness. It should be met with light.
G-d bless the light of the creator.
Well, now we have successfully got over the start of the election. Things are looking quite good, and it seems to me, that the Democratic contender is in a good mood. What started as a race with little content has begun taking shape, with both new ideas and also more depth in the why and how.
If we take a look ahead, on the next four years of government, a lot of pivotal fights are ahead of us. Most importantly the fight over the Chinese seas, and the production capacity that they have taken away from us.
This challenge is quite difficult, and we have to understand, that being an adamant enemy to mr. Putin, will give us a two sides war that we cannot afford.
At the other hand, diplomacy and understanding with mr. Putin is possible. He is a European after all, and at the end of the day, what motivates him, motivates us. We all strive for a betterment of our countries, and antagonism between states that are extremely powerful is really dangerous. This off cause does not mean we should forget our allies, but it does mean, that we should try and keep as much peace in Eastern Europe as possible. There are other wars that are quite a bit more important.
The war with China is dangerous, because they are capable of hitting targets in the US. So we should think a lot about the outcome of the war, and how we should do it. It will come in some form now, that seems to be the case. But how will we do it?
Then there are all the internal projects we can do when and if we get the power. Here I think we should think most about the little things. Education, infrastructure, tinkering with the security system to optimise it and make it better and more just. This off cause has to go hand in hand with creating more jobs, strengthening the production capacity and so on. Little but important steps.
What is very important, is that we end the gridlock of power in the senate, so that the projects we do have some traction. The war with China is a no-brainer, everybody will support that. The support of our home base production is a no brainer. But still, it has to be done, so that people can see a huge difference in their livelihood.
It can be done.
G-d bless the United States of America.
The elections process is going ok, but there is a problem with the rumours of sickness. If these are true, we have a serious problem. This no amount of spin can truly alleviate that.
If you work in politics, you do it because you want to make a better world. Most are flawed to some degree, but all who go into politics have some ideas on how to make a better world.
This is one of the true strengths of democracy, ideally it is driven by the best men or women in their interest of good.
Often it is flawed or corrupted, but at the end of the day, it is the best system, period.
So a politician needs to think about what really drives them in politics. What is it that makes them politicians basically. This is the true drive of politics.
I believe ms. Clinton has something about children, right? I know how it is, I have been working with children for a long time now. Recently with a sick child, that I work as the caretaker for. Hard work, but a giving work.
In my experience, working with children is as much working with the families of the children. If you have a child that is sick, often the family is also not functioning. The same goes for the village they live in. If it is a good village, chances are, the children are more healthy.
So at the end of the day, making a positive frame for our children is off cause thinking about schooling and health insurance and so on. But it is also about thinking about the community they live in. Is it healthy, is it good. If it is not good, then how do we come about turning it around to be a good community. Often this is the work of the local parish, or other good people.
Hard but giving work. Ideally, the community is held together by a common work ethics, and a good amount of help to those who needs it.
But if you zoom out a bit, you can see, that the village is a part of something greater. It is a city in a county, that is a county in a state, that is a state in the nation.
Everything is interconnected. So you cannot just go into a family and help this or that child, without remembering the frame around them.
See, where I am going? In order to serve the tinniest little wheel in our societal machine, that is the child, the machine itself needs to work.
That is why, looking at the health of the children is a good indication of how the general trends of the society is, because they are the most vulnerable and impressionable.
With this downside up way of looking at society, all what we do makes sense. Because why do we make better schools? To have a better education for our children. Why do we support our democratic institutions? Because ultimately, our children are the ones who pay if they do not work. Why do we have a powerful army, ultimately so that our kids are safe.
This is a viable angle on politics, if you can see the big picture around the small.
G-d bless the will to protect at support our families, with all our children in them.
What we are now witnessing in the US election is a ripening of a conclusive stride that mr. Barack Obama initiated in his tenure as president. Rather what we are seeing, is absolutely new ideas creating new opportunities for the wellbeing of the citizens of the US.
If we zoom out a bit, and look at the tools of statecraft, we can see, that most of them are a bit old. Not that old ideas are inherently bad, but ideas must adjust to new realities.
One of the basic premises of the new interconnected world is the connectedness through the internet.
This is a premise that is new, and has changed politics as well as international strategy upside down. Basically because it has changed the way we can do war. In the old times one said that the first victim of a war was the truth. Today this is no longer true. There is internet fact checking on many levels of our society now.
So this calls for a much more moral way of doing politics. Because if you do something bad, people will eventually know.
This is the best medication we could have had in such a precarious moment of our development, where moral decay is the true problem.
So, we need to address the question; how do our democracy tackle this? There has been a number of answers to this, first and foremost I believe that the tenure of mr. Obama is the true answer to that. That is a presidency steeped in morality and honour. There are no lies coming out of the mouth of the president, and that is how a president should behave.
The answer to the problem of moral decay is not a simple one, it is actually an individual one. Each individual citizen must come up with and answer based on their worldview. Do you believe in protecting minorities? Do you believe in a patriotic defense? Do you believe in a liberal world for speech? Do you believe in a patriotic production environment? Do you believe in supporting your local community? Do you believe in family? Do you believe in transparency?
We all believe in something different, and that is ok, each do we have our role to play in the world. The thing is just, we need to have faith.
That is what this all about, having faith in our part of the mechanics. Doing good for children, elderly, family, business, chuch, civil rights.
Doing good, is the basic answer to the predicament we are in.
G-d bless the will of the creator.
I have been working a lot with magic. Yes, I know, that is wrong, and you should not be dabbling with such infamous things Asger!
But, as a rational person, I have been taking another angle on magic than other, I think.
Psychology is basically also magic. It was invented by Jung and Freud, and even though Freud was very keen on making psychology within the bounds of academic lore, you can easily see on Jungs ideas, that he was heavily drinking from all kinds of strange sources. Freud was quite open on the relationship with ancient Egypt and psychology, and if there is one ancient civilisation that was souped up in magic, it was Egypt.
Often things occult end up in academic mainstream in another name, as alchemy that ended up as chemistry, and so on.
The greatest academics often happens to be the greatest magicians, as Newton for example.
Working a lot with magic, I have made some basic realisations. First of all, magic is a way to enhance your own psychological capabilities. Freud and Jung mostly took the analytical road, but magic is often about creating means to strengthen your own soul.
In this work, I have come to realise the strength of magic, and also the potential for manipulation. You can manipulate with other people, so as a magician, you need to have a very high level of ethics to be trusted.
The reason why I bring this up, is because the Nazis must have been using magic. Göebbles, the propaganda genius used methods known in magic, and it did create a very efficient, though totally immoral system. A system that was inherited by the Soviets and then by the E.U.
In the bottom I will a link to the secretary of Göebbels, that hints to truth of my observation.
In that sense, we have, in the European civilisation been trapped in a dark magical world, where the tools of statecraft was to manipulate with the voters or populace, and not meet their demands and needs.
In a sense the French revolution is the antitheses to the nazi reign. There were some occultist influencing the French revolution, and hence also the US, but they were mainly focused on all the positive virtues of spirituality, enlightenment, humanism, and so on.
But my point is, there is a war between light and darkness, that has been going for a long time. We need to support the light bringers, the humanistic belief in truth as a motor for development, not manipulation. Take our own medicine, and be true to ourselves and the world.
G-d bless the light bringers.
Link to the story of Brunhilde Pomsel, secretary of Göebbels.
Things are going in the right direction due to the presidency of mr. Obama. Do you remember the feeling of empeeding danger that was prevalent before mr. Obama took the helm?
He took over a state that was totally dependent on foreign oil, had done two wars on the credit card (that is borrowing money from China to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan), and seemed to be loosing the war of civilisation with most other systems. Russia was on the rise, and so was China.
Today, seven/eight years after. The US is in a rebound, China is in deep trouble, Russia is still strong but has not overtaken the US, the US economy is not talking about the impeding danger, but on how to do things in a right way.
All in all a come back absolutely none had foreseen. Talk about a turn around.
But at the basis none has really realised what the problem was, and how we went about to solve the crisis. Because even though I have been lecturing about these issues for a long time, bloggers are not in such a high esteem culturally and intellectually so it has never really been discussed much.
But let us have a look at it again, and let us do it in the light of the prominent academic ever; Plato.
According to Plato, the problem of the democratic system is the lack of moral. That is, freedom, that is the main virtue of the democratic ideology, has a tendency to push other virtues aside, and make a political environment that is too free.
This was what let to the downfall of Athens, according to Plato.
Now Plato was an ambiguous figure in the sense, that even though he was leading as a philosopher, still is, he was never really that keen on democracy. He was leaning towards Sparta, that was a communist state.
So even though he is good, we still need to understand that he is very critical of Democracy.
So where does that leave us? Well, there is another voice I think is good to listen to, or rather two other voices, first of all the contemporary philosopher Isokrates and off cause Aristotle. Isokrates is a long forgotten philosopher, but he was extremely influential in his time. He was the engineer behind the hellenic take over of the then known world through the son of Philip the Macedonian; Alexander the great. According to Isokrates what happens at the end of democracy is the fall of law. Nobody respects the law anymore.
Aristotle that came after Isokrates and was the pupil of Plato believes that democracy should rightfully defend itself against the moral corruption.
Now according to Plato the fall of democracy is heralded by the coming of the strong man. Usually a man that promises to “clean up all the mess”, does that ring a bell, mr. Trump?
Now, mr. Trump is basically a bit opportunistic using street level fighting methods to get going, but he is the archetype of a tyrant. That is why he is so immensely dangerous.
Now, usually I do not like to put down political opponents, I still feel sorry for mr. Romney that Barack and I fought down. As a person I believe that mr. Trump can be a good person. But as a symptom of the system he is a problem. Because people vote for him, because they are sick and tired of the system. That is the true problem of mr. Trumps candidacy. The people are telling the political elite, that they are sick and tired of all the lack of moral they feel is prevalent.
So that is why the best strategy against mr. Trump is not fighting him, it is to get cleaned up ourselves. This tells the voters, that we are hearing them, and are ready to act on their angst and disgust. That is why ms. Clinton is winning. It is because she is showing the voters that she is hearing their criticism, and tries to act on it. See the convoluted strategy? Instead of throwing mud, we are meeting the demands of the voters, and they give us the benefit of the doubt.
Now, we have been working on the flagging out of the industrial part of the US. We are slowly turning this around. But we need to discuss the problem of crime in the southern states. Crime due to drug trafficking, unemployment of migrants and so on.
We need to solve this problem with strong but humane methods. Because this problem is another problem the voters are telling us to work on.
We need to work on it, otherwise next time there is a presidential election, another tyrant might just win.
The way we do it, is through a number of means. First of all, we need a better control of the border. It can be done in many ways. But in these days of internet surveillance it should not be so difficult to set up a border patrol that works in tandem with a surveillance system that is satellite run. It is a matter of priority.
Then we need to tackle the migration problem in the South. Some we need, others, like the criminal, are honestly not our problem. If they come from Mexico, they must return to Mexico.
I know that this is a difficult problem to tackle within humanistic values, but we need to do it, otherwise we end up loosing to Trump 2.0.
G-d bless the United States of America.
It seems to me, that mr. Trump has already given up. That was a short fight!
I mean, I hoped for a prolonged, pitch battle with new weapons and new attacks at the ready all the time. But just one week!
Well, that gives us the answer to why mr. Trump is unfit for a presidential role, winning a presidential election is a like a battle, it takes heavy weaponry, and a keen skill on tactics to win.
But above all, it takes an ability to work for hours and hours, stick to the plan and rock on.
You could see this with mr. Kerry, that made one of the most prolonged pitches for the presidency, but still lost. Just to have a comeback as state secretary. That is how you fight for a presidency.
But, at the other hand, the barrage of mr. Trump, that is name calling and trying to pull the candidate down into a mud fighting, has no effect on a candidate that actually tries to win at other parameters. Such as winning the fight over the Middle class and the blue collar voters.
Whereas mr. Trump has had to engineer his political catalogue as a political hotch potch including different parts of the party, ms. Clinton has had the ability to engineer it to meet voters demands.
The race is not over, but the initiative has now been given to us. So we need to get into attack gear and release some of the positive ideas we have. Such as in the realm of race equality.
I believe, that the most important part of the next presidency will be to try and mend some of those negative feelings that the rise of IS has had on the public.
When a bar full of gays is targeted and people are mowed down in Nice, people get scared. Their worry has to be heard. But at the same time, we need to stick together as a people, or rather the American people has to stick together.
This is done by highlighting not the differences, but what we have in common; civil rights. The fight for a just and equal society, where all have chance to make a living and fulfil their dreams.
G-d bless the will of the founding father, including rev. Martin Luther King.
I have the slight feeling, that the current Democratic nominee is powering up a Middle East envoy and a strategy that is more or less Oslo peace treaty wise.
This is a huge mistake. If that is the case, then it will fail as all the attempt done before has been fails. Lately the try of mr. Kerry.
Mr. Kerry is a very intelligent man, with a drive like a bull. He could not do it, a Hillary Clinton administration cannot either. It is just not possible.
I will tell you why. The Middle East is the cradle of one very important part of our civilisation; religion. All three monotheistic religions comes from the Middle East; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
So any attempt at doing anything in the Middle East must address this basic premise. That is; what is the religious angle?
Since the Oslo accord never has done this, it has failed.
This is the new angle mr. Obama and I tried, and succeeded with. Look at the Middle East; it is at peace.
Look at it, and tell us, that we did not succeed.
Now there was once a wise that told me about a small axiom; if it work, don’t fix it.
If you zoom out a little on what Barack and I have done in the Middle East. We have brought peace not through negotiations or trying to make dialogue. We have done it through a religious development, steeped in a Jewish prophets ideas. Namely the late rav. Ashlag. One of the main teachers of Kabbalah judaism. Yes, there are actually still Jewish prophets around, they are just a little hidden. But they work their magic anyway.
So through his ideas, that has been to try and make a spiritual and metaphysical basis of all three monotheistic religions as a project of Israel, we have made peace.
Yes there are still smallish fights here and there, and there is still IS. But the commonality between judaism, Islam and Christianity has never been better. It has come to the point where the Shiite actually sees his eminence pope Francis as a great friend, imagine that.
This is how you make peace, not by bending wills.
This is the legacy of Obama, and this is what you will truly miss.
It is extremely huge in its implications. And the next president of the United States of America has to bring this legacy on.
This is not to be condescending, it is just to lay out the land for the next president, and explain what Obama and I have been doing. We can, if we expand on these ideas truly make peace. Because, it is not about the method, it is about the aim. And the aim is peace, as we have given in the holy land as a gift of G-d.
G-d bless the wisdom of the Jewish prophets.
When we talk about freedom in opposition to ethics. Let me give you a good example, or rather a good explanation. As Kant says, if you are a bird and you fly freely, you need something to move your wings. You need air to counter the thrust of your beating with your wings.
The air is moral. If you are free, you are free from somethings. Without the moral, you would not have anything to be free from.
So there is a natural relationship between moral and freedom.
Then if you think about moral, you can basically have two versions. One is a patriotic, swearing, excluding moral. That is; we have the values, and you are not included in them. Then you can have a open attitude to moral. See moral as something including. See moral as helping others, being solidaric, showing compassion and grace.
These are all positive values, and ethics.
As Alinsky says; when he was brought up by some workers leaders, he had this good advice, it was; organise!, organise!, organise! That is show solidarity to each other, and serve the community. Ethics.
Finding the right points of opposition is often what is difficult. Because what is the opposite of free trade? Adam Smith gave us, thank you, that answer.
But what is ethics in general seen from a liberal point of view? To me that is pretty obvious; it is about openness and trust.
This should be the aim a liberal political process. To be able to open and trust each other. To be friends across the lines, and that rests on us being good people, trustworthy, not lie, and show solidarity.
G-d bless the will to be honest and straightforward.
Well, here comes the proposal of mr. Trump on how to change the economy.
It seems to me to be, in some areas along the lines that I have put out; I put out the ideas that trade has to conform to a base of patriotic business producers. In other areas, it seems the same old same. Trickle down economics, that does not do much good.
Talking about patriotism in business is not, to my mind problematic. It is the way business sees itself on a good many areas, and it is simply the way the business should work.
Saying that these ideas are non Obama is not true, I mean we introduced these ideas in the last election, it was actually one of the main attacks on mr. Romney, calling him “outsourcer in chief”.
So these ideas are Obama, or at least, Obama/Trier.
To win an election, you need new ideas and find a balance between freedom and moral. This balance of free trade and a patriotic production environment is not my idea, it is the idea of Adam Smith. So it rests on a pretty sound basis.
At the core of the discussion lies one specific item; motivation. What motivates the producers to keep production in the nation?
This answer is pretty straight forward following the dichotomy of Adam Smith. On one hand freedom that is money, or resources to expand, and at the other hand honour. That is moral.
Honour and moral are two sides of the same coin. A man that is honest, benevolent, supportive and helps other people has a high honour . A man that cheats, runs with too women and you can’t trust, has low honour.
A company that supports its nation has a high honour, and often giving them that honour is all that matters. I mean, in Denmark you are summoned by the Queen if you have contributed to the nation, you get a medal, and in some rare cases you are knighted.
The queen shows you that what you have done in service to your country is appreciated. You can the show your medal to your grandchildren, and get the respect such a medal naturally gives.
You have in American military, you can get a purple heart if you do something very valourous.
The same idea could perhaps be used in the US, give people who deserve it a medal. Its is not about the money, it is about being appreciated, being special, being seen for your service.
G-d bless the will to appreciated what people do.
Jeweler using a blowtorch while he works on a ring
It is really interesting watching the American election from Denmark. Mind you, even though we have strong connection, and we have been allies forever it seems. I am still a Dane and not an American.
But I suppose it does not matter much, because we agree on many things, most importantly to make a better world and solidify the development that mr. Obama has started.
I would like to give you an idea on how I think about philosophy, because even though that I am an academic, from a long line of academics, I did not grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth. I grew up in a dirty ghetto. In a very poor area, because my mom and dad were divorced and being a single mom did not bring a lot of income.
Anyway when I grew up, I was not surrounded by other rich and wealthy people, in fact I was surrounded by normal people, and a lot of misfits. I was a the greatest misfit, because as a budding academic, I was all alone in that that dirty ghetto.
In a place like that, there are however some good things to learn. Let me give you an example.
One of the greatest experiences I had with my ghetto school, was a time we were send to some carpentry to learn a little about making things. This ancient master of the craft, was supervising the whole session, and he was not a teacher really. He was a master craftsman.
I remember that we were put to work on some small bowls, and I realised if I could use the tools just a little different, I would get to make a good bowl.
As a result of my innovative use of the day to day tool, I made the best bowl! I still remember the pride and joy of making that little stupid bowl. The master craftsman, our teacher took my little bowl and shoved it to his peers.
I know this goes against schoolroom equality, but still, it gave me so much inspiration to build. And it tought me, that to build something of a high quality, is a good thing.
When I studied at university, I continued my research and tried to be innovative all the time. But at university it was mainly frowned upon, there you are not supposed to think new thoughts, but just learn what other people have thought, chew at it, and spit out a resume. It never really worked for me, being an artist at the core of my personality, not being creative did not work.
But then again, the lesson I learned from the master craftsman still held me on a course of quality.
Because that is what I believe I learned from him; what you should build is an item of quality. To do this you have to be innovative, use you tools in new ways. But just being innovative is not good, it is when it gives you a result that stands out, that it is of value.
Craftmanship is about that; making a quality product.
I think that sometimes when you may be reading here at Rubicon it can be a little confusing, and you may have difficulty seeing the connection between the things I write. But behind all the items of thought, there is a master plan. I aim at not a utopia, but a system or a building of the highest quality.
I build Mercedeses or B&O not papercastels. Now a Mercedes may not bring you an exhilarating joy, but it gives you a solid and good life. A life of quality.
So if you want the utopian ideas, this is not the place. This place is for the persons who wish to build things properly, the old fashioned way, where a house is built on a strong foundation, and we take our time to make things right.
It may be a little boring, but hey, the house has to last for a long time, our children will have to live in it as well, so we need it to work for them as well.
G-d bless the willingness to take our time doing things right.