Opinions

The law named "The law of Jante"

The ten laws state:

  1. You shall never ever under any circumstance think you are anything.
  2. You shall never ever under any circumstance think you are as good as anyone.
  3. You shall never ever under any circumstance think you are smarter than anyone.
  4. You shall never ever under any circumstance imagine yourself better than anyone.
  5. You shall never ever under any circumstance think you know something that everyone else don't already know.
  6. You shall never ever under any circumstance think you are more important than anyone.
  7. You shall never ever under any circumstance think you are good at anything.
  8. You shall never ever under any circumstance laugh at anything that is established.
  9. You shall never ever under any circumstance think anyone cares about you.
  10. You shall never ever under any circumstance think you can teach us anything.

During Childhood

Knowing these rules are important to understand how people treat you in the lands of the north. These rules was made up to explain the flaws of the Norwegian and Danish psyche. The author did not expect that Nordic people would romanticize them and apply these as laws. These rules have become the ten commandments of the north and is much more important than anything else. 

I experienced these rules at first hand when I was in school. When I was 6 years old I wanted to start an organization for me my classmates and everyone who would join. It was like a "boy"scouts thing where we would go on trips and stuff. My passion to organize things for others was large. When I presented this idea to my 'then friend' he laughed at me. Not only that, he told people at school and they bullied me with it for years. The stupid was so annoying. I got comments like this 7 years later: "HA haha . Remember Per Erik want's to start a club. hahahaha".

I think this is because it broke the laws 1, and 7. I thought that I was capable of organizing something that everyone would benefit from. Also because of rule 9. it was impossible for them to imagine I cared. These kind of things discouraged me from trying anything or having any kind of passions. I did not really know about the Jante law by then and I was just a kid so I could not peace it together.

During teens/adulthood

The Jante law is consistently applied to all facets of society In most places, but there are exceptions. The only times you are kind of allowed to organize something is in the Russ-time (which is the half month long graduation ceremony for college) and when you enter university, much of the things are organized by students.

When I was wrestling and started loosing the interest in wrestling, I wanted to continue contributing the the club. The club didn't have a website, so I created a draft of a website and suggested they could use it. They frowned at me. I did not have a diploma, so I was not allowed to be able to make a website. Even thou I had already constructed one. But they had to admit that the club needed a website. 

Naturally the information on the website needed to be updated with new schedules. But the club never did because no one knew how to operate the website and they could not give me access to the website. I was being a coach for free when the coach was sick and I was representing the club in the national team. But, since you are not allowed to know anything or be interested in anything unless it's exactly what people want you to. I could not have any access to anything.

I felt like I was held back and that the club was overrun by adults, with a culture where learning anything was illegal. And I could not under any circumstances do things that I was interested in. I found myself a job that paid money instead and slowly the community around the club also dispersed. I left the town to study, but I did not return to the club when I got home.

My desires was breaking the law number 8. Websites are supposed to come from the established companies and cannot under any circumstance be made by a person. It breaks law 2. Of course a passionate person who burns for that specific cause, cannot under any circumstance be as good as a paid employee. Law 3 and 4 Using a tried and proven concept that is not used in the local area, by it's professionals; cannot be used. It would potentially be outsmarting them and thus also risk being better than them and it would by law 5. also imply that you know something that they don't. It sounds kind of like North Korea right?

Lets end it on a bright note

When I was at the university me and some other students started a club for our major. We where a group that was not Jante facists where everyone could contribute what they wanted. This club held soccer tournaments where we raised money trough selling waffles. It paid for rent and at the end it accumulated enough money for us to go on a big skiing trip. We also held quizzes with questions that was relevant to the subjects we where studying at a bar.

When I was in this club organization I contributed with a website that held all the events and with writing information on the Facebook page. On the website I had a text section where people could post their notes from the classes or studies. And a dictionary that was specific for that course specifically. So people could post a definition of words we learned in class. Because wikipedia was not so big back then, the website started getting a lot of traffic from people studying similar things around the country. The website got 800 daily guests at one point and it was probably good publicity for the university to. It was a lot of fun. I wish it was allowed to do this outside universities as well.

I guess you could summarize the Jante laws in it's current form. You are not to do anything fun or useful, unless you do it so poorly that everyone else can do it. Do not stray from the norms in any way, shape or form. If someone believes they can do something, beat them into the ground before they prove you wrong.

The mixed economies are the best economies.

Most developed societies came to where they are now by accumulating small successful changes. Radical reforms rarely ends in improvements. No societies are purely communist, purely capitalist or purely socialist. Because the extremes do not provide the largest amount of benefits to the people. I think purists sound mostly crazy. I have trouble believing what they are actually saying, whether they are anarchists or communists. Seams like people live action role playing in my mind. But like really bad live action role playing, because they do not seam to understand the consequences.

A metaphor

Think of society as your daily routine. You wake up feeling tired you eat, work, eat, free time, eat, sleep and then repeat. You are going to fix the tiredness in the mornings. Do you think a smaller or a larger change would solve that best. So if someone said, to solve this problem you would have to change your cycle to. Eat, work, eat, sleep repeat. He would sound crazy. And it's no certainty that it would benefit your mood in the morning, you might just get more tired. No free time would probably lead to depression.

But if you where to fix the problem of tiredness in the morning, you could try smaller changes. Maybe going to bed 20 minutes earlier, not eating or drinking caffeine before bedtime and such. These smaller changes would let you have the free time and maybe make feel better in the morning. Maybe just a little bit better is sufficient, because the changes you would have to do to be 100% awake in the morning would have to much cost on other things.

Lets apply the metaphor

 

usa flag

So lets apply this to society at large. Look at USA they are very capitalist and a result of this is that some people are left out. People are mostly responsible for their own health care, this is costing the country valuable resources in labor time and is increasing crime. The solution to this is not to go full retard communism. A minimum health care act could solve that problem. The cost of the health care act would be returned in more able labor. So overall there would not be much if any cost to it. This because the small amount of labor required to give a person health care is 1-3 hours of treatment and some factory manufactured medicine, potentially it could lead to the person yielding 50 years of labor, because of this. This means less need to exploit other workers, immigrants and the unfortunate. So if America was a little more socialist, it's economy would grow faster to archive their imaginary capitalist utopia. USA has 53 000 dollar per capital and no health care.

 

china flag

If you look at the polar opposite China, it is very socialist. Because it's so socialist, they have problems earning enough GDP per capital. They must survive mostly on produced goods, because individuals don't have the freedom to create entertainment. If you look at ADV China, that sort of get their content out of China illegally. They are earning money that is then later spent in Chinas economy. Essentially they are creating goods out of thin air. This is mostly banned by Chinas communist party, this results in not having enough cash to help the other people in the country. So for China being a little more capitalist. They would have a little more money to archive their imaginary socialist utopia. Say they where more willing to buy western technologies etc. To allow more communications and let people create more global connections, that they can use to grow the economy. China has 9 000 dollar per capital and health care and education they can't afford.

It's like both countries have solution for the other countries problem. Both are doing one right and one wrong and could learn to do two rights. So when I hear these retarded kiddos that say dumb shit like #resist_capitalism or you are just a #socialist. I just cringe. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you look at all the Scandinavian countries. They have social benefits and services and capitalism. They are all very successful. They are exporting music and culture to the rest of the world. Individuals are free to express themselves how they wan't and use it to bring in money by having their products spread internationally. This allows them to have very good health care systems. This means that capitalism and socialism is not in contrast, but dependent on each other.

My initial thoughts on veganism

I looked into veganism, because I wan't to know as many true things as possible. Veganism was a lot more based than my first expectations. I have only meet bitter vegans, I used to see them as some form of 'literally toxic' people. Had fear of getting 'contaminated'. The strongest arguments, that in large part validated it for me; was environmental impact and health. I am not so concerned about the morality. Firstly they would probably categorize me as a spiciest. That means that I care about human life first. To some extent they are right, so I reduced my meat intake. The factor that separates humans from animals in my mind, is that I can reproduce with humans and/or their offspring. And my potential offspring can reproduce with their potential offspring. This is to the benefit of my linages survival and mankind.

The vegan tax

One reason I shy from veganism is the vegan tax. Many vegan products are more expensive than their non-vegan counterparts. Vegan protein powder is 12 times more expensive than whey protein powder in some companies. And then whey often offers a better nutritional profile as well. This is especially annoying, because the cost of of production is lower than with meat. To be fair to Vegans, franchise owners often prioritize sugary items, I've talked about that earlier. Another thing that holds vegan products down is the subsidies of the meat industry. That means I have already paid for meat when I paid taxes, so I'm going to enjoy some meat. Thank you for the taxes thou vegans 😛 But for farmers sake we should subsidize non-meat farming more. Because farmers are awesome. (And in Norway, we have to subsidize farming or we become Venezuela/unstable)

Vegan nutrition and bacon 😛

Vegan diets can be nutritionally complete and healthier than meat diets. It comes with some downsides that I'm to lazy or careless to overcome. Also I first care about humans and I think there are more important problems for me to focus on first to help other people. The effort required for veganism is high. A frozen pizza can be heated to get a complete nutritional meal. There is no good vegan alternative frozen pizzas that you find in the store, that has a full nutritional profile. This makes accidentally eating vegan difficult. To eat vegan you have to cook much of the food from scratch and that takes time and effort. Yes not that much, but enough. If Vegans wanted me to eat less meat, they could do the effort for me. They could make competitive products that end up in the shelves of my local store. They also need a alternative to bacon, not fake bacon. Just something preferably smoked, because it's the smoked taste that really makes it. Smoked flat salty beans, with bacon 😛 ? ?

Accessibility:

Vegan products are treated as special products in stores. They are not prioritized by local store owners. Often you find milk in the refrigerated area and soy milk at room temperature. So for impulse purchases the only good option is the normal milk. Soy actually tastes better over all, but the store does not have it. Stocking of these vegan products are also not prioritized. I would not even consider taking on the hassle of traveling to many different stores. If vegan products become more popular, this will change. Many restaurants does not provide sensible vegan meals either. My workplace has free lunch and nothing about it is vegan, if they didn't have the lunch my salary would probably be higher. So again I'm paying for it.

 

Morality:

Argument of absolute morality is one we often hear from vegans. A maximally moral person would be in a lunatic asylum. It’s morally wrong to kill an animal, but sugar comes from underpaid workers in Africa. And some of them are actually starving. If you want to be 100% moral you also have to give up sugar and all chocolate and all the other things that give you comfort. Forcing people to work and killing is not necessarily so different. The time forced to do something is as lost as the time being dead. Buying action figures, extra furniture and commodities, is also unnecessarily items that causes suffering. People have to work in order to make those things, time that could be rather spent living. Much of the labor for these gods are done by people who have to do them in order to get food on their tables. One bad does not justify the other, but If you chose all the goods you would have little for yourself unless everyone else also did the same. Not eating meat is of course morally superior, unless death was by natural causes.

Sentience:

Sentience is an arbitrary definition you often hear vegans use. It is also inconsistently applied. Say cockroaches engage in sentient behavior and can be trained as pets. They clean themselves and they show avoidance behavior to things that inflict pain. Tomato sauce contains remains of flies. “But but. They don’t have the same feelings as us” If someone had different feelings than you would not mean it was okay to kill them. If a human was born without feeling it would not be okay to kill them. We do justify killing humans when they are in a vegetative state. Even when we know some people are more conscious asleep than others are awake. So are they still sentient?

 

Vegans are dicks and it hurts their cause:

Being a picky eater hurts personal relationships. If vegans demand to eat vegan, they are less likely to be invited to dinner and they cause extra hassle for the people affected. What if a meat eater demanded a vegan made something of meat when he came to eat. If the encounters people have meeting vegans are negative, they will be shunned away and would ultimately cause them to be less likely to become vegans. Some examples on how people can look at their efficiency as a vegan.

Vegan are 100% vegan and convince 0 people to become vegan. - Efficiency is 100%

Vegan are 90% vegan and convince 5 people to become 20% vegan. - Efficiency is 190%

Vegan are 100% vegan and you turn of a person, that would have become 100% vegan. - Efficiency is 0%

So if a vegan is concerned about saving animals they might wan't to reconsider their approach. I wonder sometimes if people think they will get poisoned by touching meat.  If only vegans would bring their own food when they visited someone new or at least gave a heads up. Basically I'm still annoyed by some Vegan people despite seeing them in a brighter light now.

Arguments Vegans "never" use but could use

Agriculture puts pressure on animal diversity and as technology advances we might need those genes or be able to benefit from these genes. Either in disease fighting in humans, in GMO's for fighting pests that eat crops or for efficiency.