Henrik Unné

Banned
  • Content count

    672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Henrik Unné

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/10/1954

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://henrik-unne.blogspot.com
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Skarpnack (a suburb of Stockholm, Sweden)
  • Interests Intellectual activism (more than anything else), my wife ,Thi(she is a fascinating and lovely person), reading (I like to read investment letters, commentary on current events, texts on philosophical subjects, popular science magazines and spanking erotica (I have a big library of "spanklit", as it is called), going to movies (I like commercial films, which are solely intended for entertainment, I do not think that they make any serious movies of the Atlas Shrugged kind, and I am not interested in seeing lesser serious movies), listening to music (my favorite groups/artists are Madonna, Pet Shop Boys, The Beatles and Blue Oyster Cult, in that order).
  1. Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

    That is the mark of a *real* man - the ability to swear!
  2. Evil Thoughts

    Ayn Rand puts the denial of another very evil thought in the mouth of Jeff Allen in Atlas Shrugged. Jeff Allen, i.e. the tramp whom Dagny stumbles upon on her train, The Comet, says (on page 614 of the old Signet paperback) - "Only I think that it is a sin to sit down and let your life go, without making a try for it." Dagny proceeds to think to herself - "The tramp´s last sentence was one of the most profoundly moral statements she had ever heard . . ." Well, I could not agree more with the words which Ayn Rand puts into Dagny´s thoughts. It *is* a really major sin to be blessed with life, and then to neglect to do anything important with that life! Many of you here on the Forum could not fathom why I came down so hard on the "statistically typical" John Does and Joe Sixpacks of the world in a series of posts here about a year ago. Well, at least part of the explanation is that I have observed so many men from "ordinary walks of life" who are *devoid* of ambition. The work, eat and sleep - and that is it. The most intellectually demanding activity which many of them engage in is to watch televion! Many of my former workmates in the factory were like that. I simply cannot abide by the kind of creature who *prefers* not to think. For when I myself was placed in a situation in which I had nothing to think about (this happened at the age of 18, shortly after my return to Sweden from America), I found my inner state to be so unbearable that I went literally insane, and was committed to an institution. So when I came across that analogy to the deep-sea creature which is brought up to the surface of the sea and promptly explodes, in Ayn Rand´s essay "The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age", I had an "aha!-experience". I knew just exactly what Ayn Rand was talking about when she discussed the thinker (or valuer) who could not stand existing in a vacuum. Because I had "been there"! But many, many men actually *prefer* to exist in such a vacuum. They *choose* to exist in such a state. And that is beyond the pale, in my book. My view is that any *decent* human being will do what I did, if he finds himself in a situation in which he cannot think about anything - he will go insane. Boredom is torture, to any decent human being. So that is the reason, fundamentally, that I do not think that the majority of the members of mankind are decent human beings. Now, maybe, you understand why I have such a dim view of the majority of the members of mankind?
  3. What is the Nature of Man as a Social Animal?

    In a sense the nature of man as a social animal is radically different for a first-hander and a second-hander. The second-hander *really* needs social relations. The first-hander doe not. You could say that each and every second-hander, by his nature, *is* a social animal. Whereas a first-hander is not (at least he is not fundamentally).
  4. Tangled (2010)

    WARNING: PLOT SPOILERS FOLLOW One minor drawback with Tangled is that it contains an implied criticism of private property. For the evil false mother of Rapunzel discovers, in the beginning of the story, a starfall (I guess that iw what it is called) with magic properties - it heals diseases and confers eternal youth on any person who comes into contact with it. But this woman keeps the starfall "for herself", instead of "sharing it" with the entire kingdom. And that makes her immoral, is the clear implication. I say that this is a *minor* drawback, however, because this anti-private property message is not stressed. And the message that you should go for your own personal happiness, which is the primary message of this movie, is more fundamental.
  5. The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

    I guess that I will have to go see this movie (The Adjustment Bureau appeared for the first time in Stockholm movie theaters last Friday, but I have not had time to see it yet). I have often found that I enjoy science fiction movies which are based on novels by Phiip K. Dick. I have never read Dick´s novels, however.
  6. Evil Thoughts

    One very evil thought is the metaphysical equivalent of the idea that - "you can get something for nothing". Many men, when they want some value, imagine that they can just get it "somehow". So many men neglect to enact the causes of the effects which they desire.
  7. This horror does not deserve a title

    Reminds me of modern Swedish "democracy"! I.e. voters who by their own admission are unable to take responsibilty for their own lives, pretend that they possess the ability to manage the whole economy. On the one hand, they are pathetic dolts who need to be taken care of by a nanny welfare state in order not to starve to death. On the other hand, they are supermen who can direct scientific research, run multi-billion dollar business concerns, control education, tell the doctors how to cure patients etc. That is just about the most colossal logical contradiction I know of. Apart from Kant´s.
  8. I pronounce judgment on the people around me here in Sweden all the time. It helps to enable me to survive, psychologically. That is the reason for my extremely negative evaluation of the majority of the John Smiths and Joe Sixpacks of the world, which evaluation many on this Forum dissaprove of. That is to say, I pronounce negative (most of the time they are negative, given the nature of the people around me) judgments in the privacy of my own mind. There would be no point to stirring up fights with almost everyone I meet.
  9. Tangled (2010)

    I second MRZ. Seeing Tangled was a wonderful experience. I would not mind seeing it a second time – if it were not for the fact that I am short on money and my wife does not want me to spend the little that we have on movies. WARNING! MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS FOLLOW! I saw many parallels between Tangled and Disney´s previous feature length animated movie, The Princess and the Frog (TPF hereafter), which I also reviewed here, roughly a year ago. In my opinion, TPF was *slightly* better than Tangled. At least I enjoyed the former a wee bit more than the latter. The reason is that TPF was a more original story and work of art. Tangled was slightly conventional. Incidentally, I did not enjoy that Disney animated film from 1991, The Beauty and the Beast, nearly as much as I enjoyed either TPF or Tangled. Many Objectivists have said that The Beauty and The Beast was Disney´s very best animated movie in “modern” times (i.e. the last few decades). But I felt that the universe of The Beauty and the Beast was rather “dark”, and even a bit malevolent. It was not until the very end that its story became really “happy”, i.e. really benevolent. I think that the reason that I liked the two most recent Disney animated features more is that they portray more thoroughly benevolent universes. Here a few of the major similarities between Tangled and TPF. Both have a young *woman* as the main protagonist. These two heroines are in a really bad situation at the outset of both of the movies. But both of them are real “troopers”, who fight for their own happiness. And this is the best thing about these two most recent Disney movies – they both come close at least, to openly praising the virtue of selfishness! Tangled comes closest to doing this explicitly (it is however, not fully *explicit*). The central conflict in the heroine´s soul is this – should she sacrifice her own happiness for her alleged mother (who is not really her mother, and who is deceiving and using her, although the heroine does not discover that until the very end of the movie), or should she give higher priority to the pursuit of her own personal happiness? The movie does very clearly *imply* that the proper thing for her to do would be to refuse to sacrifice her own happiness for the sake of her alleged mother. And this is made clear even before the heroine discovers her alleged mother´s deception. However – the climax of the movie, where the hero commits an heroic act, *could* be taken to be an act of altruism. So the climax might possibly contradict and weaken the movie´s main thesis – that “selfishness is good”. The hero´s action in the climax was, however, actually an act of heroic integrity. But since this movie was made by Disney, it is conceivable that the people responsible for that element of the plot had *intended* the action to be taken to be an example of “heroic self-sacrifice”. I will not tell you exactly what happened, but the act which the hero committed would in any normal course of events have led to a life of suffering for the heroine, for whose sake he commits it. (It was nevertheless a selfish act of heroic integrity. But most non-Objectivists would probably not understand that.) But, it turns out that a literal miracle happens and due to that miracle, the hero and the heroine get to live happily ever after as husband and wife nevertheless. Well, the idea that self-sacrifice will in a “normal” universe lead to suffering - but that a miracle (i.e. something supernatural) will somehow make it lead to happiness – is, of course, sheer Christianity. Nevertheless, any intelligent viewer of Tangled will see that the main message is – “you should go for your own personal happiness”. So I think that both Tangled and TPF are signs that the culture is moving in the right direction. Another similarity in both of Tangled and TPF is that in both of them the main *male* protagonist is a morally flawed, albeit not evil, person at the beginning of the movie – but that he “goes good” towards the end, thanks to the beneficial influence of the heroine, with whom he falls deeply in love. And, of course, both Tangled and TPF have *really* happy endings! Here are a few differences between the two movies. In TPF, the male protagonist is, at the outset of the film, morally flawed merely because he is an indolent playboy. But he learns to love work from the heroine, who loves to do productive work right from the beginning. In Tangled, the male protagonist is, at the outset of the film, morally flawed because he is a literal criminal. However, he is “merely” a thief. He does not physically assault and injure *people*. And the reason that he has become a thief is (of course) that he was born into poverty and he saw no other way out. Although he does also to be sure, like the “glamour” of living the life of a criminal. For - “It is so exciting!”- is his attitude. Another difference is the nature of the heroines. In TPF, the heroine is a woman who is *not* in fact a princess, but the male protagonist thinks that she is. In Tangled, it is the other way around. The heroine is the “lost princess” of the kingdom, but neither she nor the male protagonist knows it. In TPF the happy ending of the movie consists of the heroine and the hero getting to marry each other and spend the rest of their days running the restaurant which the heroine had been dreaming of establishing for years. The happy ending of Tangled is more conventional. It is discovered, at the end of the movie, that the heroine is in fact the “lost princess” of the kingdom, whom everyone has been trying to find. And so when the hero marries her, the upshot is that they live happily ever after, as the good king and queen of a happy and grateful kingdom. After all, this is a Disney movie! TPF stresses the virtues of independence, productivity, selfishness and justice - in that order. While Tangled stresses the virtues of selfishness, independence and integrity - in that order. Although many non-Objectivists may not “get” the last of the virtues in Tangled, since they may think that the hero is being “unselfish” when he commits his heroic deed at the climax. I am glad that *Disney* is making movies nowadays which stress these kinds of virtues. It is a good sign. Incidentally, I also agree with MRZ that Tangled was very well-done, technically. The animation was very dramatic and skillful.
  10. Immigration and the welfare state

    Let us say that you lived in Nazi Germany. And the laws which were on the books stipulated that you *must* report any Jews whom you know are hiding somewhere to the government - so that the authorities can "deal with them". Well, I would say that any German citizen who disobeyed such a law would not only not be immoral -, he *would* be a *hero*. Well, I see the issue of illegal immigrants the same way. In my mind´s eye, any illegal immigrant (unless he or she is a real criminal) who is hiding somewhere in Sweden, in order to avoid being "sent back" - is in the same category as a Jew who is hiding in Nazi Germany (although there is, of course, a big difference in degree - I am not saying that the opponents of free immigration are in the *same* moral category as Nazis). So I would never dream of reporting any illegal immigrants to the authorities here in Sweden. It would be moral treason. In fact, I once loved an immigrant who was hiding from the Swedish authorities (this was before I met my wife Thi). She came home to me a few times and I slept with me, but then she stopped seeing me because she was afraid of the risk that seeing me might lead to her being exposed and sent back to the country in the Third World, which she came from. This woman was a real heroine. She had seven children who were living in her home country. And she was supporting them by working in Sweden and sending money to pay for their expenses (such as schooling). Since she was an illegal immigrant, she had to work "black". So she did not have the security (such as disabilty insurance and unemployment insurance) which Swedish workers have. She would go home to people she know and clean their homes. She did not pay any taxes of course. But her "employers" knew that, so they probably did not pay her much. This woman lived and struggled in relative poverty in Sweden for years, because she was so loyal to her seven children. And the Swedish restrictions on immigration made this heroine´s life *so* hard on her. But if life in Sweden as an illigal immgrant was so hard on her - then why did she not return to her home country of her own free will? Well, she told me that there was no way that one woman alone would be able to support *seven* children on the wages which she would have any chance of earning in her home country. Remember, she came from a country in the Third World. The money she earned cleaning people´s homes "on the sly" here in Sweden was paltry - but it was still much better than the money she would have been able to earn in her home country (this woman was uneducated, although she was moral and intelligent, so she would not have been able to get a really "good" job in her home country). This woman´s husband was a real a-hole who had abandoned her for a younger woman, and had stolen her savings to boot (they had shared a bank account and he absconded with her money). And he refused to help her with the support of their seven children. This guy was worthless. But she was nevertheless unable to divorce him, because the country she came from was Catholic, so that country had very restrictive divorce laws. I wanted to marry that woman desperately, but I couldn´t, because she was already married. And she could not move in and live with me without being married to me either, because then the Swedish government would learned that she was living with me and it would immediately have "sent her back". I *really* wanted to marry that woman, since she was a heroine in my eyes - but the Swedish restrictions on immigration made that impossible. So you see, restrictions on immigration have all sorts of bad consequences. *All* non-objective laws do. And restrictions on immigration are one species of non-objective law. And now you know more about some of the reasons why I have those harsh and "extreme" views which I gave expression to in my essay here - http://henrik-unne.blogspot.com/2011/02/su...xenophobia.html .
  11. State of the States ... and Countries

    I doubt that my own country, Sweden, would even exist today, if it had not been for the (often altruistic) protection given by the U-S.A. Well, Sweden *might* still exist - as a vasall state of either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But to not imagine that many Swedes are grateful! My own wife, Thi, who is an immigrant from *Vietnam* is more pro-American than most of my fellow Swedes! Go figure!
  12. Three incendiary essays on my own blog

    I plan to "advertise" my blog, and the three afore-mentioned essays in particular, as widely as possible. I have already thought of several places on the net where I can give my blog publicity. I have not yet had time to publicize my blog in any other places on the net than this forum. Unfortunately, I do not have much spare time on my hands, since almost I leave home at 5:30 AM every morning on weekdays, and to not get home until roughly 7:00 PM. Then at least one and a half hours are devoted to eating dinner and spending time with my wife. So I get hardly any time to surf the net on weekdays. It is only on the weekends that I get time which I can devote to such activities as writing posts for the Forum and my own blog, and publicizing them. Right now, it is early on Saturday morning here in Sweden, so right now I am just getting started with this weekend´s activities on the net. Thanks for the tip about Facebook, Betsy. I will try to do what I can with it.
  13. Betsy once remarked that a great advantage which derives from owning your very own site on the net, is that *noone* can silence you - for you are "speaking on your own property" - whenever you say something unpopular on your own site. Well, that comment of Betsy´s is *so* true. I know that from my own experience. Therefore, I have chosen to present certain *incendiary* views of mine in three very long, new essays which I have just posted on my very own blog. Noone can delete these essays, because *I* own that blog. Most of the pieces on that blog have, so far, been written in the Swedish language. But recently I have posted three essays wirtten in English, which I suspect will be of interest to the readers of this Forum. My first essay - "Objectivism - Rot at the Top" - presents my views on the controversy which the book "The Logical leap" as given rise to. My view can be summarized as - "Mssrs. Peikoff, Binswanger and Harriman are now in the same category as David Kelley. I.e. they are no longer genuine Objectivists." Of course, I would be amazed if I am *not* promptly "thrown out of the Objectivist movement" as soon as the individuals whom I am criticizing find out about the existence of this essay. But as I state in the essay - "I would rather be a genuine Objectivist *in my own `eyes´, than be an `officially approved´ Objectivist in the eyes of others". The second essay - "Summa Contra Xenophobia" - deals with my views on the question of free immigration. Yes, *of course* I make "sweeping moral condemnations" in that essay. Those of you who know me will not be surprised. But my "sweeping moral condemnations" are not *arbitrary*. For the very reason that that essay is so very long, is that I back up my pronouncements of moral judgment in it, with a wealth of facts and rational aruments. The third essay - "Who the H-ll is Henrik Unné?" - answers the question which many readers of my other two essays are almost certain to ask - "How can some obscure grassroots Objectivist from the boondocks of faroff Sweden imagine that he is qualified to pronounce a negative moral judgment on such luminaries as Dr. Peikoff, Dr. Binswanger and Dr. Harriman - and on the *many* individuals all around the world who oppose free immigration?" This essay presents my "intellectual credentials". But mostly, it just explains the fact that I am on the premise that - "I do know what I in fact know", and therefore I am not afraid to pronounce unqualified moral judgments. Even on men, such as Dr. Peikoff and Dr. Binswanger, who I know can run circles around me in "theoretical philosophy". This third essay is, like the other two, *very* long (but, hey, it´s my own friggin´ blog, ain´t it?), but taking the trouble to read it through will give you a good idea of "where I am coming from". Here is a link to my blog, which you can click on, if you want to read some really incendiary debate pieces. http://www.henrik-unne.blogspot.com/ At least noone will disagree with me when I say that I do not mince my words, and I do not pull my punches! By the way, there is no "debate" function on my blog. My blog is not a forum, like Forum.4AynRandFans. So if you disagree with the views which I express in my three essays, you will not be able to argue against me. Sorry. It is not that I want to prevent people from arguing against me. It is just that I would need to hire professional help, if I wanted to set up the kind of functions which would enable my site to become a discussion forum open to the public. And I am *very* short on money, so there is not a chance in h-ll that I would be able to afford to hire any such professional help. I trust that everyone here is aware that I am *not* afraid of letting other people argue against me. I just *love* to argue with people (with the single exception of my wife, but I get into lots of arguments with her too, unfortunately!).
  14. Immigration and the welfare state

    The "illegal" immigrants are only breaking laws which are not legitimate to begin with. So we should not do anything which would hurt illegal immigrants (such as sending them back to the pestholes which they had the decency to attempt to escape).
  15. Immigration and the welfare state

    I *have* tried to "get out of Europe". Just a year ago, my employer (an American industrial company) shut down its factory here in Sweden. But the company told me that I could work for them in their factory in Fairport (a suburb of Rochester, New York) if I wanted to. I told them that I would be happy to work for them in the U.S.A. Moving to America would be like "coming home" for me, since I lived in America when I was a child. But I was not able to move to America, despite the fact that I did have a job arranged (and my employer had promised that it would help me find a place to live in in Rochester). It was the *American government´s restrictions on immigration* prevented me from moving to America! I could not get a green card. My work skills were not judged to be "valuable enough" to the American economy (collectivism, anyone?). So you see, I have some pretty good *personal* reasons for opposing restrictions on immigration, over and above my "philosphical" reasons. Another personal reason I oppose restrictions on immigration is the suffering which Sweden´s restrictions on immigration have caused my wife, who comes from Vietnam.