Document - By: Mimisbrunnr December 4, 2021, 11:12
Practice shows that the answer to the above question is not as simple and straightforward as one would immediately think. The topic also embraces unreasonably wide, so let us for the sake of the current discussion limit it to only an assessment of those the people in elections have endowed with special power and authority, ie our politicians. As usual, it makes the best sense to assess the case field theoretically-rationally at the same time as existing experience is drawn in to reach a sensible conclusion.
Do we have reason to be happy with our political power elite? In this context, the opinion of dissidents - by dissidents, I mean us political "dissidents" belonging to the "conspiracy" who did not vote for any of the parliamentary parties, at least we did not do so in the last election - plays less of a role; that we do not trust Gahr Støre, Solberg and the rest, no one is surprised. In other words, the question concerns first and foremost the many who in elections gave their support to the largest parties; do these ordinary Norwegians have reason to be satisfied or dissatisfied with what they received? Of course, we have not yet done more than a small part of the parliamentary term, but we have already seen a little, and moreover we can (I now stand linguistically in the same booth as those who voted Labor, H, KrF or similar) include in the assessment also previous experiences when answers are to be given.
Let's start at the top, and then I do not mean the Prime Minister this time, but the President of the Storting, who actually sits in the country's second most exalted position, passed into formal dignity only by the king: Does this post look good? No one can be very happy; very shortly after the Labor Party's Eva Kristin Hansen had been elected to lead the Storting, it became clear that she had cheated with commuter housing and compensation for the same (by the way, the behavior seems to be closest to «standard operating procedure» at Løvebakken, nothing special for just her), and the formerly not very well-known representative consequently had to leave his new, fine office . Whining about how sad it all was and how sick she had been, did not help much when the party leadership realized that the lady had become a political burden.
Jonas Gahr Støre told us while it burned the most and boiled the worst, that the case « could go beyond the people's trust» To the top political leaders, and there he undeniably had a point; we shall return to this in more principle. Judging from a lawyer's point of view, it was obviously necessary, though not sufficient, for the aforementioned EK Hansen to be fired after the record-short stay on the pinnacle of formal power. However, when you look at the whole process, including who ultimately ended up in the Storting's top leadership after the clean-up was over - Iranian-born Masud Gharahkhani (Labor Party) became president while Kari Henriksen was appointed as the Labor Party's fourth vice president - the chest is not filled with either excitement or awe.
The man who had previously held the position of multiple vice president, Sverre Myrli, had to leave, according to newspaper rumors, because once in his twenties he had had an affair with a then 18-year-old female AUF - which law was thereby broken, is at best unclear, and it can probably not come as a shock to even them « purest »neo-moralists that also politically active young people have sex drive? - or it was because he was a man, not a woman, which apparently made him impossible within the Labor Party's overall equality cabal.
Positive arguments for putting Mr Gharahkhani from Drammen and Iran in the presidency have, as far as I can see, shone with his absence. The fact that the man who is now number 2 after the king in our state custom comes from a not particularly friendly country, which the spouse also does, is obviously not considered a serious security "challenge". We notice the attitude and practice of a member of the Labor Party's inner circle, and think ours. Saying a resounding yes to the new Norway was obviously more important than anything else when the election fell.
Had the presidential case been exceptional in the political environment, it might not have been so dangerous, but this is not the case: There are almost countless examples of our elected representatives violating the letter of the law - not to mention its spirit - for self-promoting purposes both before, during and after they sat in the Storting or were members of the government. They take liberties that ordinary people can only dream of. There is no point in listing several such cases that anyone can find through simple web searches. The question is: How should those who have elected these semi-sluggish people to top positions, relate to the fact that they fail almost as soon as the opportunity arises?
The first thing to do is stick your finger in the ground and acknowledge the state of affairs. In Norway, too, we stick with a political ruling class that is simply - I do not have the strength to rewrite reality - ethically inferior; they do not deserve the trust they appear, but abuse it time and time again. We previously had a genuine society of trust in this country, when Steinrøysa with its clear hint of something poor, but at the same time honest and fair was a dear, half-funny synonym for Norway, but the confidential ties between "upstairs" and "downstairs" are broken , and this is the fault of the power elite . Not all Norwegian citizens have yet realized this, but the unpleasant truth is gradually being said by ordinary people and voters as well, and it istheir reaction to the new mistrust that is primarily the topic of the day. How can and should they react?
At the heart of the question is the recognition that any hope that fails creates life pain, it can not be otherwise. This also applies to political-national hopes for honesty and decency that no longer hold in the face of the new Norwegian reality. Should voters close their eyes and reject the knowledge that they are being tricked and cheated by propagandists, narcissists, accomplices and thugs who are simply looking to grind their own cake both in terms of status and financially as soon as they have reached society's various honey jars?
To me, such a reaction seems unacceptable; one simply cannot live in a lie just because the truth is unpleasant, then one tears down one's own dignity, yes, the foundation of self-respect one can rely on even when everything else falls apart. If reality is nitrous - politically or otherwise, all adults know from their own experience that this is how life sometimes feels - then you have to acknowledge this, take it upon yourself , because you can not consciously live on in lying. Then you take damage to your soul.
This applies in politics as much as in the small world - various difficult conditions within one's own family, problems concerning one's own or friends' health, disparities one becomes aware of and much more of various kinds: One can not ignore the truth, pretend it does not exist, while maintaining self-esteem . In the end, the will to be honest is the only thing left. No one can take it from us.
To pretend that the kind of fine institutions one has long respected, still - almost out of old habit and / or for the sake of tradition - deserves to be embraced with the same reverence as we once knew, is fundamentally wrong, and it was they who broke the relationship of trust, not the people . Neither bishops who have become politicians, politicians who have become swindlers nor press people who have ended up as propagandists in the service of the Power deserve that someone take off their hats in the face of them. Again: Unpleasant truths are easier to live with than sugary lies. The real is always better than the fake.
You get a kind of peace inside you if you - at least internally if not externally - dare to conclude that we are facing people and forces who do not deserve the respect of honest people. What else is to be done in the case is another and more difficult question, but cognition of reality as it is can never be a bad starting point.
The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.
All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified