mandag den 29. august 2011
lørdag den 27. august 2011
Quote of the day: Charles Eisenstein.
“In a world in which nothing matters, the most atrocious events are no longer horrifying; the most piteous victims no longer stir our compassion; the most frightening possibilities, like nuclear war and ecological destruction, no longer frighten us. Sometimes we explain it away as “compassion fatigue”, but really it is a disconnection from reality. None of it seems real. We sit back, benumbed, watching the world slide slowly toward a precipice as if it were an on-screen enactment. Similarly, we watch the years of our own lives march on, indifferent to the preciousness of each passing moment. Only once in a while an alarm goes off; we panic for a moment with a thought like, “This is real! This is my life! What am I here for?” And then our environment tempts us back into stupor.”
Charles Eisenstein, The Ascent of Humanity p. 321.
fredag den 26. august 2011
US Diplomats Are Pushing Monsanto's Dubious Products.
According to Truth-out: "Dozens of United States diplomatic cables released in the latest WikiLeaks dump on Wednesday reveal new details of the US effort to push foreign governments to approve genetically engineered (GE) crops and promote the worldwide interests of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont..."
Via Truth-out.org.
Derfor brænder jeg min stemmeseddel.
De fleste synes at være enige om, at demokrati er en god ting. Medbestemmelse og muligheden for at påvirke dagsordenen ved at gøre sin stemme gældende, er vel i de flestes bevidsthed at foretrække frem for ingen medbestemmelse. Det er derfor også ganske interessant, at virkelighedens Danmark kun afspejler denne konsensus i et ganske lille omfang. I langt de fleste af de institutioner, hvor vi tilbringer størstedelen af vores tilværelse, er muligheden for medbestemmelse og for at påvirke dagsordenen iøjnefaldende lav. Såvel på arbejdspladserne, som i gymnasierne og på universiteterne er mulighederne for at påvirke beslutningsprocesserne så begrænsede, at de nærmest ikke eksisterer overhovedet.
I det politiske rum er de flestes reelle mulighed for indflydelse begrænset til at sætte et kryds ud for det mindste onde en gang hvert fjerde år, og så håbe på, at de folk man lader repræsentere ens holdninger, gør et bare nogenlunde godt stykke arbejde. Selv indenfor flere af de etablerede politiske partier, som vel burde være de mest demokratiske organisationer i en repræsentativt demokratisk orden, er der en ganske betænkelig tendens til topstyring. Der kan vel endvidere næppe herske tvivl om, at der gennem de seneste ti år er blevet ført en så høj grad af blokpolitik, at næsten halvdelen af borgerne ikke har været reelt repræsenteret i lovgivningsprocessen og den førte politik, i langt størstedelen af det nye årtusinde.
En ganske anseelig del af den gældende lovgivning bliver desuden slet ikke vedtaget i Danmark, men derimod i EU-regi, hvor de praktiske muligheder den enkelte har for at påvirke lovgivningsprocessen og derfor reglerne som vi skal underkaste os, er forsvindende små. Ikke engang det folkevalgte Europaparlament kan foreslå nye love. Det er udelukkende EU-kommissionen som kan det. En kommission som ingen blandt de europæiske folk har valgt. At der hersker en stor grad af demokratisk underskud i den Europæiske Union vidner alle valgene om, idet det kun er en lidt over halvdelen af de stemmeberettigede europæere der går til stemmeboksene når der er valg. Den europæiske forfatningstraktat der blev nedstemt af flere EU-lande, er genopstået med få kosmetiske ændringer. For at undgå at befolkningerne nedstemte den blev den simpelthen vedtaget udenom folkelige afstemninger af de siddende magthavere. Dette var for eksempel tilfældet i Danmark. At disse magthavere næppe har læst traktaten endsige forstået den, kan der næppe herske tvivl, da den er fuldstændig ulæselig og uforståelig og ville kræve årevis at decifrere og forstå for selv eksperter.
De grundlovssikrede rettigheder som i teorien udgør kernen i vores påståede demokratiske orden, har endvidere, sammen med borgernes retssikkerhed, været under et så voldsomt pres gennem de seneste mange år, at man nok gør klogt i at betvivle hvorvidt vores såkaldte repræsentanter overhovedet besidder en tilstrækkelig grad af demokratisk sindelag. Med terrortruslen som belæg har maghaverne i de seneste år taget så mange foruroligende skridt i retning af politistaten, at de friheder generationerne før os kæmpede hårdt for at opnå, i dag er så meget på retræten, at man bør frygte de måske en dag helt vil forsvinde. Denne frygt graveres yderligere af, at befolkningen lader til at være så optagede af at blive underholdt af dansende aber og klovne med balloner, at kun et mindretal læser aviserne og endnu færre har et overblik over omfanget af truslerne mod vores frihed. Uden en opvakt og velinformeret befolkning, som forstår at forholde sig kritisk til magthaverne i det politiske rum, er betingelserne for en retfærdig, engageret og oplyst politisk orden, hvor der værnes om friheden og retfærdigheden, ikke på nogen måde opfyldt. Denne problemstilling bliver desuden endnu værre af, at befolkningens vagthund det meste af tiden ligger sovende i sit hundehus, idet kun et fåtal af medierne overhovedet har beskæftiget sig med disse problemstillinger i noget nær respektindgydende grad.
Al tale om egentligt folkestyre er derfor, med ovenstående in mente, vanskeligt overhovedet at tage alvorligt. Befolkningen er i praksis medbestemmende i så lille en grad, i vores samfunds forskellige rum og institutioner, at ordet 'folkestyre' nærmest må siges at være blevet meningsløst i lys af den herskende politiske og økonomiske orden. I stedet for at være kollektivt medbestemmende og ansvarligt selvforvaltende, har vi i stedet lagt administrationen af vores liv og fælles fremtid, i hænderne på de mestendels visionsløse karrierepolitikere, der lader til at bekymre sig mere om komme til magten, end om at være i handlingsmæssig overenstemmelse med deres partiers erklærede programmer.
At stemme på det mindste onde ved det kommende valg, er derfor ikke noget jeg har tænkt mig at spilde min tid på, da denne afmægtige handling er med til at opretholde illusionen om, at vi lever i et samfund baseret på medbestemmelse og folkeligt styre. Jeg har derfor tænkt mig at brænde min stemmeseddel offentligt på vaglaftenen.
I det politiske rum er de flestes reelle mulighed for indflydelse begrænset til at sætte et kryds ud for det mindste onde en gang hvert fjerde år, og så håbe på, at de folk man lader repræsentere ens holdninger, gør et bare nogenlunde godt stykke arbejde. Selv indenfor flere af de etablerede politiske partier, som vel burde være de mest demokratiske organisationer i en repræsentativt demokratisk orden, er der en ganske betænkelig tendens til topstyring. Der kan vel endvidere næppe herske tvivl om, at der gennem de seneste ti år er blevet ført en så høj grad af blokpolitik, at næsten halvdelen af borgerne ikke har været reelt repræsenteret i lovgivningsprocessen og den førte politik, i langt størstedelen af det nye årtusinde.
En ganske anseelig del af den gældende lovgivning bliver desuden slet ikke vedtaget i Danmark, men derimod i EU-regi, hvor de praktiske muligheder den enkelte har for at påvirke lovgivningsprocessen og derfor reglerne som vi skal underkaste os, er forsvindende små. Ikke engang det folkevalgte Europaparlament kan foreslå nye love. Det er udelukkende EU-kommissionen som kan det. En kommission som ingen blandt de europæiske folk har valgt. At der hersker en stor grad af demokratisk underskud i den Europæiske Union vidner alle valgene om, idet det kun er en lidt over halvdelen af de stemmeberettigede europæere der går til stemmeboksene når der er valg. Den europæiske forfatningstraktat der blev nedstemt af flere EU-lande, er genopstået med få kosmetiske ændringer. For at undgå at befolkningerne nedstemte den blev den simpelthen vedtaget udenom folkelige afstemninger af de siddende magthavere. Dette var for eksempel tilfældet i Danmark. At disse magthavere næppe har læst traktaten endsige forstået den, kan der næppe herske tvivl, da den er fuldstændig ulæselig og uforståelig og ville kræve årevis at decifrere og forstå for selv eksperter.
De grundlovssikrede rettigheder som i teorien udgør kernen i vores påståede demokratiske orden, har endvidere, sammen med borgernes retssikkerhed, været under et så voldsomt pres gennem de seneste mange år, at man nok gør klogt i at betvivle hvorvidt vores såkaldte repræsentanter overhovedet besidder en tilstrækkelig grad af demokratisk sindelag. Med terrortruslen som belæg har maghaverne i de seneste år taget så mange foruroligende skridt i retning af politistaten, at de friheder generationerne før os kæmpede hårdt for at opnå, i dag er så meget på retræten, at man bør frygte de måske en dag helt vil forsvinde. Denne frygt graveres yderligere af, at befolkningen lader til at være så optagede af at blive underholdt af dansende aber og klovne med balloner, at kun et mindretal læser aviserne og endnu færre har et overblik over omfanget af truslerne mod vores frihed. Uden en opvakt og velinformeret befolkning, som forstår at forholde sig kritisk til magthaverne i det politiske rum, er betingelserne for en retfærdig, engageret og oplyst politisk orden, hvor der værnes om friheden og retfærdigheden, ikke på nogen måde opfyldt. Denne problemstilling bliver desuden endnu værre af, at befolkningens vagthund det meste af tiden ligger sovende i sit hundehus, idet kun et fåtal af medierne overhovedet har beskæftiget sig med disse problemstillinger i noget nær respektindgydende grad.
Al tale om egentligt folkestyre er derfor, med ovenstående in mente, vanskeligt overhovedet at tage alvorligt. Befolkningen er i praksis medbestemmende i så lille en grad, i vores samfunds forskellige rum og institutioner, at ordet 'folkestyre' nærmest må siges at være blevet meningsløst i lys af den herskende politiske og økonomiske orden. I stedet for at være kollektivt medbestemmende og ansvarligt selvforvaltende, har vi i stedet lagt administrationen af vores liv og fælles fremtid, i hænderne på de mestendels visionsløse karrierepolitikere, der lader til at bekymre sig mere om komme til magten, end om at være i handlingsmæssig overenstemmelse med deres partiers erklærede programmer.
At stemme på det mindste onde ved det kommende valg, er derfor ikke noget jeg har tænkt mig at spilde min tid på, da denne afmægtige handling er med til at opretholde illusionen om, at vi lever i et samfund baseret på medbestemmelse og folkeligt styre. Jeg har derfor tænkt mig at brænde min stemmeseddel offentligt på vaglaftenen.
Dagens Citat: David Hume.
"Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as FORCE is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular."
- David Hume: “Of the First Principles of Government.”
torsdag den 25. august 2011
Dagens citat: Herbert Marcuse.
"Når radiospeakeren rapporterer om tortur og mord på menneskerettighedsforkæmperne i samme ufølsomme tonefald, som han bruger ved rapporter om børskurser, varenoteringer og vejret, eller med samme "schwung" som han bruger ved reklameindslag, bliver objektiviteten falsk - ja mere end det, det bliver en krænkelse af menneskeligheden og sandheden ved at forholde sig rolig, hvor man burde blive oprørt, ved at afstå fra beskyldninger, hvor beskyldningerne ligger i selve kendsgerningerne. Den tolerance, som udtrykkes i en sådan neutralitet, tjener til at minimere eller rent ud frikende den eksisterende intolerance og undertrykkelse. Hvis objektivitet har noget at gøre med sandhed, og hvis sandhed er mere end et spørgsmål om logik og videnskab, så er denne slags objektivitet falsk og denne slags tolerance umenneskelig. Og hvis det er nødvendigt at sønderbryde det bestående meningsunivers (og den praksis som det indebærer) for at sætte mennesket i stand til at finde ud af, hvad der er sandt og falsk, så må man forlade denne bedrageriske objektivitet"
- Herbert Marcuse, Politiske Essays
onsdag den 24. august 2011
Once Again An Excellent Commentary by Glenn Greenwald.
Below is a quote from Glenn Greenwald's latest blogpost on his very readable Salon.com blog. I generally recommend him for the simple reason, that he is usually a very informed and well argued observer and commentator. Read his blog!
"I'm genuinely astounded at the pervasive willingness to view what has happened in Libya as some sort of grand triumph even though virtually none of the information needed to make that assessment is known yet, including: how many civilians have died,how much more bloodshed will there be, what will be needed to stabilize that country and,most of all, what type of regime will replace Gadaffi? Does anyone know how many civilians have died in the NATO bombing of Tripoli and the ensuing battle? Does anyone know who will dominate the subsequent regime? Does it matter?"
The Informants.
"The bureau now maintains a roster of 15,000 spies, some paid as much as $100,000 per case, many of them tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States."
The American bimonthly magazine Mother Jones, known for it's investigative reporting and in-depth articles, has just published a rather unsettling story titled "The Informants" about the FBI and the Bureau's widespread use of agent provocateurs and spies "tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States". In the article the question "The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?" is sought answered. It can be read in its entirety at the Mother Jones site.
The American bimonthly magazine Mother Jones, known for it's investigative reporting and in-depth articles, has just published a rather unsettling story titled "The Informants" about the FBI and the Bureau's widespread use of agent provocateurs and spies "tasked with infiltrating Muslim communities in the United States". In the article the question "The FBI has built a massive network of spies to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots—or leading them?" is sought answered. It can be read in its entirety at the Mother Jones site.
fredag den 19. august 2011
mandag den 25. juli 2011
Om ideologi.
Enhver ideologi er et forsøg på en altomfattende verdensforklaring og netop deri ligger fælden, for når vi forsøger at forklare verdens enorme mangfoldighed indenfor rammeværket af en altomfattende ideologi, reducerer vi simultant vores perspektiv på tilværelsen og verden, til hvad vi kan få til at passe ind i det kognitive rammeværk som den ideologiske overbevisning udgør. Information der ikke passer ind i det ideologiske koordinatsystem ser vi bort fra, mens information der opretholder vores tro på, at den verdensforklaring vi nu engang er tilhængere af, er den eneste egentligt sande, til gengæld ganske let plottes ind i den ideologiske matrice vi opererer indenfor.
Vi er alle vidner til dette fænomen ofte. Når religiøse mennesker af monoteistisk observans eksempelvis tager skarp afstand fra evolutionsteorien er det et udtryk for dette, idet den darwinistiske evolutionsteori er uforenelig med de hellige bøgers skabelsesberetning og den deraf udledte teori om intelligent design, hvorfor evolutionsteorien altså snarere end at beskræfte rigtigheden af de monoteistiske religioners dogmatik, i stedet afkræfter dens krav på endegyldig sandhed. Et andet eksempel på hvordan information der ikke passer ind i verdensanskuelsen bortfiltreres, kan i denne tid ses hos dele af den yderste amerikanske højrefløj, hvor man gør et stort nummer ud af, at drage den klimatologiske konsensus omkring den globale opvarmning i tvivl, fordi det der vidt og bredt indenfor naturvidenskaben betragtes som kendsgerninger, ikke passer sammen med et ideologisk tankesæt, hvor uendelig forøgelse af rigdom og akkumulering af ressourcer betragtes som et ubetvivleligt gode.
At hævde, at ideologiske overbevisninger har været kilde til megen splid og splittelse op gennem menneskets civilisationshistorie og fortsat den dag i dag, er næppe at tage munden for fuld. Eksemplerne på dette er så talrige, at ingen i besiddelse af blot et minimum af dannelse kan være i tvivl om dette udsagns rigtighed, men selvom det burde være åbenlyst for enhver, at ideologierne skaber splittelse, had og vold, ja endda truer menneskehedens og andre livsformers kollektive eksistensgrundlag, forsyner vores samfund os kun i ringe grad med de nødvendige kognitive våben til at forsvare os mod at blive tilfangetagne i ideologiernes kvælende spindelvæv. Ideologisk overbevisning er ikke blot en stopklods for tænkningens frie udfoldelse, men også en grænsebom der sørger for, at vores empati og lydhørhed sjældent tilfalder folk hvis meninger og holdninger ikke befinder sig indenfor det rum af mening og betydninger som den ideologisk overbeviste befinder sig indenfor.
Skal vi gøre os forhåbninger om fredelig og positiv sameksistens med hinanden og den biosfære der er garanten for vores eksistens, bliver vi derfor nødt til at sætte en stopper for den vold, splittelse og splid som den ideologiske bevidsthed afstedkommer og i stedet skabe rammerne for, at et nyt, mere inklusivt og holistisk verdensbillede opstår og vinder udbredelse. Et nyt verdensbillede som har en ydmyghed indbygget i sig, i forståelsen af, at enhver afbildning af væren og vores tilværelse i verden, nødvendigvis må være begrænset og ufuldstændig. Et verdensbillede hvor der derfor er plads til mange perspektiver og erkendelsesveje, som alle komplementerer hinanden i en søgen mod positiv kollektiv evolution og den videst mulige genforening af mennesket og verden.
Vi er alle vidner til dette fænomen ofte. Når religiøse mennesker af monoteistisk observans eksempelvis tager skarp afstand fra evolutionsteorien er det et udtryk for dette, idet den darwinistiske evolutionsteori er uforenelig med de hellige bøgers skabelsesberetning og den deraf udledte teori om intelligent design, hvorfor evolutionsteorien altså snarere end at beskræfte rigtigheden af de monoteistiske religioners dogmatik, i stedet afkræfter dens krav på endegyldig sandhed. Et andet eksempel på hvordan information der ikke passer ind i verdensanskuelsen bortfiltreres, kan i denne tid ses hos dele af den yderste amerikanske højrefløj, hvor man gør et stort nummer ud af, at drage den klimatologiske konsensus omkring den globale opvarmning i tvivl, fordi det der vidt og bredt indenfor naturvidenskaben betragtes som kendsgerninger, ikke passer sammen med et ideologisk tankesæt, hvor uendelig forøgelse af rigdom og akkumulering af ressourcer betragtes som et ubetvivleligt gode.
At hævde, at ideologiske overbevisninger har været kilde til megen splid og splittelse op gennem menneskets civilisationshistorie og fortsat den dag i dag, er næppe at tage munden for fuld. Eksemplerne på dette er så talrige, at ingen i besiddelse af blot et minimum af dannelse kan være i tvivl om dette udsagns rigtighed, men selvom det burde være åbenlyst for enhver, at ideologierne skaber splittelse, had og vold, ja endda truer menneskehedens og andre livsformers kollektive eksistensgrundlag, forsyner vores samfund os kun i ringe grad med de nødvendige kognitive våben til at forsvare os mod at blive tilfangetagne i ideologiernes kvælende spindelvæv. Ideologisk overbevisning er ikke blot en stopklods for tænkningens frie udfoldelse, men også en grænsebom der sørger for, at vores empati og lydhørhed sjældent tilfalder folk hvis meninger og holdninger ikke befinder sig indenfor det rum af mening og betydninger som den ideologisk overbeviste befinder sig indenfor.
Skal vi gøre os forhåbninger om fredelig og positiv sameksistens med hinanden og den biosfære der er garanten for vores eksistens, bliver vi derfor nødt til at sætte en stopper for den vold, splittelse og splid som den ideologiske bevidsthed afstedkommer og i stedet skabe rammerne for, at et nyt, mere inklusivt og holistisk verdensbillede opstår og vinder udbredelse. Et nyt verdensbillede som har en ydmyghed indbygget i sig, i forståelsen af, at enhver afbildning af væren og vores tilværelse i verden, nødvendigvis må være begrænset og ufuldstændig. Et verdensbillede hvor der derfor er plads til mange perspektiver og erkendelsesveje, som alle komplementerer hinanden i en søgen mod positiv kollektiv evolution og den videst mulige genforening af mennesket og verden.
Breivik's manifesto in perspective.
The following is an attempt to put Anders Breivik's actions and ideological viewpoints into a larger perspective. The reason why I'm mostly using examples from Denmark is simply that they are the ones with which I am most familiar. Other examples abound!
In his manifesto we learn about Breivik's ideological views, which is a fusion of liberalist views in the realm of economics (he mentions the ultraliberalist Austrian School as an inspiration) with national conservatism, anti-marxism, anti-multiculturalism and anti-islamic views, and, last but not least, strong Christian views of a rather authoritarian variety. Above all he considers himself a freedom fighter and attempts to justify his actions by stating that they have been necessitated by the threats to the purity of Western culture generated by the influx of immigrants from non-western cultures in general and Islamic culture in particular.
Had he lived in the United States he would've made a good Republican in that the above-mentioned melting pot of ideological viewpoints to a great extent are the dominant ones within the current Republican Party. To a very large extent Breivik's views are also reminiscent of those of the Danish political party Fremskridtspartiet (The Party of Progress) whose sister party in Norway he was formerly associated with. Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the Danish national conservative party Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party), started her political career in Fremskridtspartiet and besides from Breiviks liberalist economic views, it seems that the party she leads shares most of the above-mentioned views with him. Dansk Folkeparti has been in constant growth for many years and parties similar to it are on the rise everywhere in Europe. In Denmark Dansk Folkeparti has been the supporting party of the government and the guarantor of its power for the last ten years. Within this rather short timespan this cooperation has resulted in some of the world's strongest anti-immigration laws, the rise and rise of the surveillance state and very concerning threats to our fundamental political freedoms.
It is not, however, only on the fringes of the Danish right-wing that we find these ideological melting pot tendencies. Soren Pind, who is one of the most prominent politicians on the right in Denmark at the moment, is a good example of this. Pind is a neoconservative when it comes to foreign policy, a national conservative in domestic affairs and a liberalist in the domain of economics, which of course makes him anti-marxist. He is currently the secretary of integration and he recently proposed that people from countries with many cultural similarities with what, in his mind, is Danish culture, should be allowed easier access to the country than people from cultures that are more dissimilar. He also recently stated that the goal of Danish integration policy shouldn't be merely to integrate immigrants into the culture but to assimilate them so that they become as much like the Danes as possible. This clearly indicates that he is a national conservative holding anti-islamic and anti-multiculturalist views, in that the dissimilar culture he is refering to is seemingly (what he considers to be) Islamic culture. Pind is probably the leading candidate to become the next leader of his party (Venstre), which together with De Konservative (The Conservatives), is currently in charge of government. The two governmental parties are lagging behind in all opinion polls though and the next election is at the most 3.5 months ahead. After his party's very probable loss he will likely become its leader, in that it is tradition for the leader to step down after losing an election and I can't really see any likelier candidate for the foremanship among the members of his party.
Breiviks ideological views are therefore not fringe right-wing views neither in Scandinavia nor the world at large and we should therefore be careful not to think of him as a lone madman, for even though we are definitely witnessing the work of a very narcissistic man seriously lacking in empathy for others, his actions can not be understood in isolation from his ideological views.
Take for example the war on Iraq, which claimed far more numerous lives than Breiviks actions. Is it not the case that this war stemmed from ideological views very similar to those of Breivik? Was it not presented to us - after the falsity of the evidence of Saddam's possesion of weapons of mass destruction had been made abundantly clear - as a crusade for freedom and democracy? Indeed it was and right-wing politicians from all over the West vehemently supported the war on ideological grounds similar to those of Breivik. Soren Pind has even ventured as far as saying that the war on Iraq caused the Arab Spring which is just another way of saying that the inferior Arabs didn't understand the true value of freedom and democracy until it was imposed upon their collective consciousness by the benevolent bombings of the superior West!
Rather than seeing Breivik as an isolated case we should view him as a product of far greater forces that are everywhere in the West trying to dismantle welfare, establish far reaching surveillance states and sow the seeds of hatred, separation and therefore violence.
We are no longer afraid of fascism thinking that we are too smart to ever let something like that happen again but unfortunately this has made us unable to see the forest for the trees. Sure, contemporary fascism is not an exact replica of any of the fascisms that ravaged Europe and South America during the twentieth century but it has enough similarities to justify the use of the term 'fascism'. Look at modern day Russia or the developments that have taken place in the United States and Europe, particularly since the turn of the millenium and it should be abundantly clear that we are heading in a very dangerous direction, especially when it is taken into account, that times of turmoil and economic recession are the breeding grounds of fascism.
When history repeats itself the charateristic phenomena of earlier times do not necessarily return exactly as they were in the past. Look therefore not for talk of the necessity of a strong leader. Contemporary fascists market themselves as good, sound democrats in favour of political freedoms, but do not be mislead! Look not for racebased ideology and anti-jewish rhetoric. Contemporary fascists are backers of the Israeli right-wing and its Zionist doctrines. The anti-jewish rhetoric and talk of the inferior race has vanished and instead been replaced with anti-islamic rhetoric and talk of the inferior Islamic culture! Look not for the roman salute or the swastika for they are not the primary characteristics of contemporary fascism. Fascism is now returning wrapped in the national flag and wearing the cross!
In his manifesto we learn about Breivik's ideological views, which is a fusion of liberalist views in the realm of economics (he mentions the ultraliberalist Austrian School as an inspiration) with national conservatism, anti-marxism, anti-multiculturalism and anti-islamic views, and, last but not least, strong Christian views of a rather authoritarian variety. Above all he considers himself a freedom fighter and attempts to justify his actions by stating that they have been necessitated by the threats to the purity of Western culture generated by the influx of immigrants from non-western cultures in general and Islamic culture in particular.
Had he lived in the United States he would've made a good Republican in that the above-mentioned melting pot of ideological viewpoints to a great extent are the dominant ones within the current Republican Party. To a very large extent Breivik's views are also reminiscent of those of the Danish political party Fremskridtspartiet (The Party of Progress) whose sister party in Norway he was formerly associated with. Pia Kjærsgaard, the leader of the Danish national conservative party Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party), started her political career in Fremskridtspartiet and besides from Breiviks liberalist economic views, it seems that the party she leads shares most of the above-mentioned views with him. Dansk Folkeparti has been in constant growth for many years and parties similar to it are on the rise everywhere in Europe. In Denmark Dansk Folkeparti has been the supporting party of the government and the guarantor of its power for the last ten years. Within this rather short timespan this cooperation has resulted in some of the world's strongest anti-immigration laws, the rise and rise of the surveillance state and very concerning threats to our fundamental political freedoms.
It is not, however, only on the fringes of the Danish right-wing that we find these ideological melting pot tendencies. Soren Pind, who is one of the most prominent politicians on the right in Denmark at the moment, is a good example of this. Pind is a neoconservative when it comes to foreign policy, a national conservative in domestic affairs and a liberalist in the domain of economics, which of course makes him anti-marxist. He is currently the secretary of integration and he recently proposed that people from countries with many cultural similarities with what, in his mind, is Danish culture, should be allowed easier access to the country than people from cultures that are more dissimilar. He also recently stated that the goal of Danish integration policy shouldn't be merely to integrate immigrants into the culture but to assimilate them so that they become as much like the Danes as possible. This clearly indicates that he is a national conservative holding anti-islamic and anti-multiculturalist views, in that the dissimilar culture he is refering to is seemingly (what he considers to be) Islamic culture. Pind is probably the leading candidate to become the next leader of his party (Venstre), which together with De Konservative (The Conservatives), is currently in charge of government. The two governmental parties are lagging behind in all opinion polls though and the next election is at the most 3.5 months ahead. After his party's very probable loss he will likely become its leader, in that it is tradition for the leader to step down after losing an election and I can't really see any likelier candidate for the foremanship among the members of his party.
Breiviks ideological views are therefore not fringe right-wing views neither in Scandinavia nor the world at large and we should therefore be careful not to think of him as a lone madman, for even though we are definitely witnessing the work of a very narcissistic man seriously lacking in empathy for others, his actions can not be understood in isolation from his ideological views.
Take for example the war on Iraq, which claimed far more numerous lives than Breiviks actions. Is it not the case that this war stemmed from ideological views very similar to those of Breivik? Was it not presented to us - after the falsity of the evidence of Saddam's possesion of weapons of mass destruction had been made abundantly clear - as a crusade for freedom and democracy? Indeed it was and right-wing politicians from all over the West vehemently supported the war on ideological grounds similar to those of Breivik. Soren Pind has even ventured as far as saying that the war on Iraq caused the Arab Spring which is just another way of saying that the inferior Arabs didn't understand the true value of freedom and democracy until it was imposed upon their collective consciousness by the benevolent bombings of the superior West!
Rather than seeing Breivik as an isolated case we should view him as a product of far greater forces that are everywhere in the West trying to dismantle welfare, establish far reaching surveillance states and sow the seeds of hatred, separation and therefore violence.
We are no longer afraid of fascism thinking that we are too smart to ever let something like that happen again but unfortunately this has made us unable to see the forest for the trees. Sure, contemporary fascism is not an exact replica of any of the fascisms that ravaged Europe and South America during the twentieth century but it has enough similarities to justify the use of the term 'fascism'. Look at modern day Russia or the developments that have taken place in the United States and Europe, particularly since the turn of the millenium and it should be abundantly clear that we are heading in a very dangerous direction, especially when it is taken into account, that times of turmoil and economic recession are the breeding grounds of fascism.
When history repeats itself the charateristic phenomena of earlier times do not necessarily return exactly as they were in the past. Look therefore not for talk of the necessity of a strong leader. Contemporary fascists market themselves as good, sound democrats in favour of political freedoms, but do not be mislead! Look not for racebased ideology and anti-jewish rhetoric. Contemporary fascists are backers of the Israeli right-wing and its Zionist doctrines. The anti-jewish rhetoric and talk of the inferior race has vanished and instead been replaced with anti-islamic rhetoric and talk of the inferior Islamic culture! Look not for the roman salute or the swastika for they are not the primary characteristics of contemporary fascism. Fascism is now returning wrapped in the national flag and wearing the cross!
torsdag den 7. juli 2011
Quotes of the day: Stéphane Hessel.
The quotes below are all taken from the now famous pamphlet by the French World War II resistance fighter Stéphane Hessel, entitled "Time for Outrage!" ("Indignez Vous!"):
"The worst possible outlook is indifference that says, “I can’t do anything about it; I’ll just get by.” Behaving like that deprives you of one of the essentials of being human: the capacity and the freedom to feel outraged. That freedom is indispensable, as is the political involvement that goes with it."
"We must realize that violence turns its back on hope. We have to choose hope over violence—choose the hope of nonviolence. That is the path we must learn to follow. The oppressors no less than the oppressed have to negotiate to remove the oppression: that is what will eliminate terrorist violence. That is why we cannot let too much hate accumulate."
"The Western obsession with productivity has brought the world to a crisis that we can escape only with a radical break from the headlong rush for “more, always more” in the financial realm as well as in science and technology. It is high time that concerns for ethics, justice and sustainability prevail. For we are threatened by the most serious dangers, which have the power to bring the human experiment to an end by making the planet uninhabitable."
onsdag den 6. juli 2011
Quote of the day: Rudolf Rocker.
“Every new social structure makes organs for itself in the body of the old organism. Without this preliminary any social evolution is unthinkable. Even revolutions can only develop and mature the germs which already exist and have made their way into the consciousness of men; they cannot themselves create these germs or create new worlds out of nothing. It therefore concerns us to plant these germs while there is still yet time and bring them to the strongest possible development, so as to make the task of the coming social revolution easier and to ensure its permanence.”
mandag den 4. juli 2011
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)