Monthly Archives: April 2014

Sweden preparing for World War III

Not least through our country’s Foreign minister Carl Bildt we have long been active in provoking tensions in Ukraine, as well as in other parts of former Soviet Union. The obvious purpose has been to expand Western power at the expense of Russian influence, under the pretext of democracy promotion. In accordance with this pretext we supported and immediately accepted the overthrow of a democratically elected president in Ukraine.

Mr. Bildt’s interest in democracy for other countries cannot possibly be much more than hypocritical demagogy. He has had a long political career during which western powers, lead by USA, have performed or supported the overthrow of not so few democratic leaders and replaced them with sometimes murderous dictators, without Bildt having any complaints. His ambition is obviously to serve as a lieutenant, loyal to the superpower (whatever reward he hopes to acquire by that).

Democracy seems to be something that hypocrites demand in enemy countries and try to circumvent at home.

A natural step in the new Cold War has been to vilify Russia and demonize Vladimir Putin, and here Bildt is accompanied by Sweden’s mainstream press and television. This process has borrowed features from fairytales for children, with their naïve black and white worldview. It has now reached a fantasy level where media and the government are preparing for the next war. Gotland, a large island in the Baltic Sea, has to be rearmed, editors scream; Sweden’s defense budget will be increased substantially, says the Prime Minister in an op-ed in the main newspaper.

We are back again to the old days when “Soviet Communism threatened to conquer the whole world”, thus providing motives to uphold a substantial military budget in Sweden. Our air force was one of the strongest in the world, and our weapons industry impressive (and still quite remarkable for a small, peaceful country). No sane person could foresee a scenario where Soviet troops actually would invade Sweden, but demagogy outplays intellectual sanity in questions like these.

To extrapolate from events in Crimea to a Russian military threat towards Sweden today is naturally even more fanciful. The best thing our government could do to preserve peace would be to order Carl Bildt to return from his never-ending flying trip, and lock him up in his Stockholm office. The next step could be to regard Russia in a realistic manner; not as a defeated enemy who has to obey orders, but as the world’s largest country with legitimate interests to safeguard its borders.

The provocations, broken promises and deceitful behavior that western powers have subjected Russia to since 1989 would not have been accepted by any other country, least of all USA. And the important question is what to be gained from this game of Russian roulette we have forced onto the world. Are there profits to be made from World War III?

The importance of writing right (…to left)

I happened to read an anecdote the other day which possibly is a tall tale since it’s a bit too good. It was told by a Danish soldier to a columnist in my daily paper, Lena Sundstrom, and was about the US propaganda war in Afghanistan carried out with leaflets. Since illiteracy is widespread the leaflet was in the form of a cartoon.

The first frame of the cartoon showed crying women and children in a land of chaos. In the second frame US soldiers arrived to the country. And finally in the last frame were pictured lots of happy people.

There was just one snag in it: Afghans read from right to left!

If Communist atrocities are ideological, what about ours?

“Communism” was a word and a concept that in many ways formed the basis for the Cold War as it was fought by the West. In that function the word meant oppression, Gulag, torture, executions and most other horrors one could think of. From a very specific semantic perspective that’s of course true.

For a more precise definition of communism as an ideology one should rather consult Marx and the other founders of the doctrine. Then one immediately finds the central creed: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. One also finds that communism was an emancipatory movement aimed at freeing workers from wage slavery. Solidarity, righteousness and equality were moral cornerstones of the ideology.

In real life it turned out to become something completely different. Lenin put an end to the Worker’s Councils as one of his first actions; then he installed the dictatorship of the Proletariat, thus sending anything that resembled real communism down the drain. He may have had his reasons; for instance that his regime otherwise may not have survived the civil war in which the reactionary side was strongly backed by large troops from western powers. But anyway: real communism disappeared in Russia before it had even started.

Still both East and West kept on using the false concept “communism”, but for contradictory reasons. Soviet used the word to benefit from the positive connotation it had been given by Marx and the Communist Internationals among others; the capitalist world used it to make people connect solidarity, righteousness and equality with the horrors taking place in the “communist” states.

And this way of using the word still goes on. I was provoked to write this postcard by a younger editorial writer – Erik Helmerson – in Sweden’s most important paper, Dagens Nyheter. Although he was barely more than a downy young man when “communism” disappeared from most of the world he is still obsessed with this phenomenon. With a gun pointed at his head, he writes, he would admit that Nazism was worse than Communism but he rejects both. This is a skewed and supposedly deliberate way to defame egalitarianism by equating it with an ideology whose very essence and core was the extermination of Jews, communists, mentally ill and other human beings they deemed to be inferior.

Some literate conservatives have realized the discrepancy in comparing Nazism and Communism on these grounds (maybe because they have read some books and thought for a while). Some of them have then chosen another line of defense, namely that a really Communist society cannot be achieved by other means than violence and coercion (“the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” is one popular excuse). The reason would be the conservative tendency to think that humans are born somewhat evil, and has to be coerced to become altruistic (which anyway, according to their world view, isn’t necessary at all).

Hopefully this tells us more about conservatives than about humanity as a whole. The idea that no noble ends could be accomplished without people being forced by a dictatorial power is not just utterly defeatist, but truly stupid. People in general wouldn’t say that such bad ethics apply to themselves, and the absolutism of the thesis is refuted daily by human activities around the world.

There is another corollary to Helmerson’s poor thinking that never appears in mainstream contexts. If Communism as an ideology has proven intolerable because of what dictators have made in its name, what about Capitalism, Christianity and other ones of our own doctrines?

During more than half the last century most of the atrocities in the world have been carried out by us in the white, capitalist and Christian world, lead by the United States. Our illegal and immoral wars have left millions of murdered human beings behind and devastated whole countries. We have supported dictators who have murdered further millions of their citizens; we have overthrown dozens of democratically elected politicians and installed vicious dictators, just to mention some the most obvious misdeeds comparable to those in the “Communist” world. If Helmerson’s logic and practice had any value the conclusion would have been that Capitalism and Christianity are criminal ideologies.

But luckily that’s not the case. The key to the question is that our anti-Communists also are anti-intellectuals to an appropriate degree.