The main status symbol in Sweden is the neighbour you live in.
You are not a lawyer, an employee nor a doctor; you are a Stureplan or a Södermalm or a Vasastan person.
The most prestigious area in Stockholm is Stureplan: the most expensive for accommodation, the fanciest part of the city where people go to show off and try to prove that they are somebody while clubbing in the night.
I never go to Stureplan because I judge it a chicken trap. However it is a good looking neighbour and sometimes I like to walk there, but never in the night!
When people live abroad they need to share something with someone else to feel integrated.
This need to belong to something is fulfilled in Stockholm by Lappis. Lappis is a student campus where people have their own room with their own bathroom and a shared kitchen. Lappis is where students, especially foreign students feel at home, where they return from downtown or from long distance trips.
There’s a curious syndrome which is contagious, “The Lappis Syndrome”, being this campus a place you don’t want to leave because there’s everything in there: food (Ika), friends, parties, gym, laundry, even a beach to suntan during summer time.
It’s a trauma to leave Lappis and everyone who is still alive inside tries to stay there as long as possible. Those who don’t like it, those who escapes it are people who are already old, old in the inside.
Criticism is not condemning someone, it is just underlining what is not perfect about something and if it leads to reflections and new solutions is extremely useful.
People should understand the difference between destructive and constructive criticism.
There’s really no need to feel annoyed or irritated or offended by constructive criticism even about your own country, it could lead to new perspectives and ideas which could generate new solutions and improvements.
When I was a half grown up (around 16 and 17 years old) I was rather sceptical when I heard some of my class mates point out "I never watch TV". The same thing happened when some friend of my sister, just a bit older than me claimed without any doubt "sugaless coffee is much better".
My typical reaction was "this guy is boasting around, he is just showing off. Television is very useful and bitter coffee is disgusting. They are liars and they prefer to suffer a little bit to prove that they are cool, macho and bla bla bla".
For a long time I was convinced of that.
Then suddenly something happened: I was alone and I was making a coffee, when it was ready I was about to add loads of sugar as usual but there was no sugar anywhere. My instinctive reaction was to throw the coffe in the sink but just before doing that I thought "why not trying? I mean, let's see if those guys are just full of shit or they have a point".
At first it tasted very bad but then a little bit better.
So the days after I tried again and then again and what tasted bad started to taste good and it became possible to recognize the taste of different brands which was impossible when I used a lot of sugar
These days I get disgusted when somebody gives me coffee with sugar inside, it tastes fake.
I have never been dependent on TV but I used to watch it at least 2 hours a day. Nowadays I don't even own a TV and when someone gives me one of them as a present I don't say anything, I thank that person but then I hide it in a storage!
How did that happen?
Three years ago I was sharing a flat with a retired man who was TV dependent. Unfortunately the internet connection worked only in the living room where he used to watch TV 12 hours a day which means I had to listen to TV programs every time I used the internet
I started to hate TV because watching or even hearing it felt like a violence perpetrated against me
I found out I didn't miss it at all! Besides I noticed that real life is very different from what they show on TV, extremely different.
If people start observing what happens in the real life they will notice as certain mechanisms are completely different from what TV wants us to believe
Everything shown on TV has the objective to convince us of something which does not exist and that is in the interest of those who show those things, not in ours.
If we paid more attention on what happens in the real life (streets, offices, courses) we could understand why what we would expect to happen (according to TV shows) don't happen and why other things happen
Over the last few years many social networks have been created , no need to mention them since everybody knows Facebok, Myspace and Twitter.
What people ignore is who uses the most these tools: Losers
People who are on these networks most of the time (and have loads of "friends" there) are usually people that don't exist in real life, when they walk on the streets they are called NOBODY
But then they have their Social Networks where they have their "virtual friends", their pictures, their "life"
Many people will never understand that what masses usually do is pointless and very sad. That's why I never used Myspace, Twitter and I stopped using Fake Book (Face Book) a long time ago even though I admit FB to be very useful to get quickly in touch with those you need to contact
But real life is based on phisical presence on a territory, who you really are in that environment
There will never be a virtual life that can take over this matter of fact
In order to explain the Swedish social mechanisms it's important to analyze the characteristics of this country which are related to its particular history. Sweden is a country which is different not only from the rest of the countries that shape up the European Union but also and above all from any other country in the world. Why? Along with Switzerland, Sweden is the only country that has not fought wars over the past 300 years. Unlike Switzerland, however, Sweden is not located in the heart of the European continent, influenced by the important states which surround the Helvetic Republic, but instead lies fairly isolated and reluctant to contamination of the main European countries. In Sweden, the memory of any war does not exist among the elderly and even in the “collective memory of the species”, which determines that it is not present in the “Swedish collective consciousness" the “perception of danger”. All this implies that there is no such social mechanism (typical of any other country in the world, independent from any religion): the need for the people to stay close to their own family and to their dearest friends to guarantee their survival. In the Swedish "cultural gene pool" war is not present, they do not know the perception of danger, if danger is there it is not perceived and therefore Swedes usually don't feel like maintaining necessarily close relationships with their parents and even with people outside their family. Not in a way comparable to that characterizing the other cultures worldwide anyway.
The non participation to wars has allowed Sweden to grow economically and to address conflicts between industrials and workers in a peaceful way that satisfied both sides. So the Swedish social system was developed with its advantages and drawbacks which continue nowadays. Sweden is in good and bad ways antithetical to Anglo-Saxon countries. The bright side is the free education, lack of crime, respected rules, the assistance of those who cannot make it on their own, high standards in many fields and the emancipation of women. The drawbacks are the lack of evolution in Darwinian terms: talent is not awarded, everyone has to make it, ambition becomes a negative factor, there are no incentives to develop excellence. The Swedes are generally happy with their system: they read data about crime and sustainable life and pride themselves of being among the leaders in the world; while traveling they realize that the standards to which they are used in many fields do not have many equals in the world. Most are surprised why other nations don’t reach the same standards of living and usually their explanation is the difference in the density of population. Only some of those who live abroad are able to understand what is the main reason that leads to these differences, what is the price that the Swedes pay, while others are unwilling to do so, to have these standards: human relationships.
In Sweden the rules are respected with neither “ifs” nor “buts”, they are right by definition. The ability of the Swedes to be proactive or leave the scheme tend to zero. The Swedes are very lonely and often call themselves “boring”, but they don't not understand why: how these aspects are just the reverse of the coin of their ability to stay in their schedules assigned by the Leviathan system that guides them throughout their whole lives. The "rebels" are usually those who had the opportunity to live abroad and felt freer: not to do what they wanted but to express their thoughts and emotions. These Swedish "rebels" are used to moving to the U.S., England or even to Australia because English is a language they speak, does not require time to be studied and the Anglo-Saxon culture is known throughout television which is colonized by TV shows made in USA or UK. The most brave “alternative” Swedes choose Latin countries as a destination but it is still a small minority. Those who live their whole lives in Sweden usually tend to start working when they turn 30 years old, have a decent salary, do not ever work a minute after office hours, are not big savers, succeed however in affording their 10/15 day vacation in Thailand, where sometimes they meet the partner who will become their “Sambo” in the future.
But how's life in Sweden in the social aspects? Who commands there? How do people get to know people? How do couples shape up? And friendships? What interests do people have? Having interviewed many Swedes and having obtained very similar answers from everyone (fancy that!) I can rely on them for the explanations. Everyone agrees that women command, there are more disputes on the elucidation. Mary, 27 year old worker, claims that there's a tacit agreement between men and women: women are happy to command while men are happy not to have to prove their masculinity. Kåre 28 years old teacher confirms this view and argues that the problem arises when men are called to pull out the balls when the situation needs that and they are unused to it so they are unable to do that. Isabel 25 year old just moved to Stockholm and points out that girls are more structured and organized, and men are less, in every corner of the world, therefore Swedish girls would lead the relationship even with non Swedish men. No one knows when historically the "seizure of power" was perpetrated by women, we can therefore rely on the historiography which tells us that the feminist movement took place in the '60s which mark the turning point; the movie Flickorna made by Mai Zetterling in 1968 is quite enlightening. In the current European Parliament, the Swedes have 47% of women as national representatives, Germans 32%, the British 24% to give a dimension to the difference of the women weight in various nations.
It seems there is no such big difference as to how new friendships and new love relationships start. All agree on the point that in Sweden and especially in Stockholm people are rigid and skeptical about new acquaintances: it is almost unthinkable to make friends on the streets or in a non-conventional way. The protocol which has to be followed takes that the new friend or partner comes from school or work, depending on whether they are students or employees. Even more typical is common friendships: this appears to be the main source of new friendships and loves. In particular with regards of the emergence of new sentimental relationships it seems that this is favored by organized parties where friends of friends can get to know each other and with the help of alcohol can also take immediate action: the possibility that two unknowns with a common friend can end up together the same night is not very rare and it’s often the way a relationship starts. Being Swedish girls emancipated and not having socio-cultural blocks they don’t need to wait to see this guy 2 or 3 times (as it happens often in the Latin world) before they get what they want.
Regarding “flings” originated in pubs or clubs the girls don’t believe so much in them: it’s not that they never happen; it can happen once a year that a girl after several drinks ends up with a total unknown she is attracted to. Swedish girls usually agree that stable and reliable relationships don’t originate that way.
"Historical" friendships are considered typical and rarely repeatable: the Swedes usually have a couple of friends they have known before turning 14 years old and the friendships continue throughout their entire lives. The Swedes can associate with new people but before creating intimacy it takes long time and a series of rather daunting tests. Friendships between boys and girls are not very common: girls accuse boys of being only sexually interested in them; the boys argue the opposite: they say if a girl is not attracted to that boy she is not interested in a potential friendship, not even as a vehicle for new acquaintances. Neither the 19 year old Ida nor Isabel agree on that: they have many male friends due to their hobby: the former plays the guitar, the latter is passionate about football since she is a former player.
The most widespread activities in Sweden are: sports during the weekdays, attending coffee shops after work or after school, getting drunk in clubs or private parties in the weekend; during their alcoholic euphoria the Swedes seem to be more human and accessible but they act in an "altered state of consciousness" and then everything ends when the night terminates and the next day they are back on their rules. People should thereby stick to the methods described above to make stable acquaintances.Provided that it’s worth it!
It would be too easy and misleading identifying the “fregnacciaro” with the nerd, because the “fregnacciaro” is something much worse, as he is much more harmful.
The fregnacciaro is a subcategory of creep and not necessarily a girl beggar.
The fregnacciaro can be often seen accompanied by a beautiful girl who is his fiancee: attractive, unique and unrepeatable (meaning that if he gets dumped he’ll never find any other girl comparable to his current fiancee). The girl ended up with him because they’ve been put together by the case and continues to be with him because she can sleep tight during the nights, knowing that her fregnacciaro does not interest any other girl and therefore she is not afraid of being betrayed.
The fregnacciaro is not dangerous at any level: he dresses in an iperapproved and harmless way, his political and social ideas are always super politically correct and will never bother anyone.
The fregnacciaro is not attractive, does not cause emotions, not a beating heart, but he does not know it and he is happy because he has his life under control and he also sees it as perfectly logical.
The weight of his role in relationships is equal to 0, precisely as it is in making decisions at any level or in creating evolutionary trends.
The fregnacciaro thinks to be a good person since he does no harm to anyone.
But he does harm, it’s just he does not know that and will never know: he strengthens the belief of the non evolved people that the supercommon places expressed in any form by him are correct and pushes the other nerds but not fregnacciari to emulate him, increasing the number of those clones/ non-creative beings and the mediocres.
The nerd but not fregnacciaro looks with envy at fregnacciaro, being jelous of his girlfriend in the first place and also of his satisfaction to be what he is: nothing. The hope which fregnacciaro must (unconsciously) have is that nothing will change in his life, nobody ever has to insinuate the seed of doubt in his head, and above all he never has to start using his brain in a non-standard way because in that case he could have a breakdown.
He must continue to be what he is while the others, those who can, should try to make the species evolve because many among non-fregnacciari cannot do it either.
God bless the fregnacciaro, but above all, God protect the creative!
