A new era of McCarthyism and a battle for hearts and minds

Yesterday the Sunday Mail reported that the Fife-based The Institute for Statecraft had received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the Foreign Office. The institute is supposed to counter Russian propaganda but that hasn’t prevented it from a smearing campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, describing the latter as “useful idiots who’s anti-Westernism is helpful for the Kremlin’s cause“. And true, we are heading towards a multi polar world in which the hegemony of the West is no longer guaranteed. A more self-reassured Russia, China and India are looking after their own geopolitical interests on the World’s stage. Hence we are witnessing clashes of interests the Ukraine, in Syria, on the Horn of Africa, in Central Asia, in the South China Sea and so forth. Western domination is being challenged. To imply that the West is just an innocent victim of aggression is thus to become a useful tool and running the errands of Moscow, at least in the eyes of for instance The Institute for Statecraft. This correlates with George Bush Junior’s words after 9/11, something that echoed with the implementation of the democratically highly questionable Homeland Act and right before the illegal invasion of Iraq back in 2003, an invasion that turned into a monumental geopolitical failure:

“You’re either with us or against us (in the fight against terror).”

This attitude is perhaps something that is to expected in a totalitarian society, but not in a democracy. As such this stands in stark contrast to free speech, any narrative must be allowed to be put into question, any ideology or religion must be allowed to be held into scrutiny. That is what constitute a free and democratic society. However today liberalism has to a large extent become illiberal. Geopolitical agendas of the West can not be put into question, migration policies, closely connected to the first, can not be criticized without being labeled as an expression of xenophobia and the list goes on. Identity politics has poisoned free thinking, reducing the citizens to a few simple attributes based upon gender, ethnicity, orientation, economic class and religion. The idea of nation is however considered as off limits. Hence an increasingly conservative working class doesn’t fit the bill in this postmodern society. Those that oppose are hence by definition deplorables or useful idiots, regardless of what narrative for objection that is produced. Society is becoming increasingly totalitarian, taking on an air of the McCarthy Era, and this in a society that prides itself as the vanguard of democracy and the protector of free speech.

In various parts of Europe anti blasphemy laws have been passed, how does this correlate with free speech and freedom of religion? The majority is thus adapting to the moral mindsets of religious minorities rather than upholding liberal values, spiraling society further into a island landscape with conflicting interests. What must be remembered is that a religion is no different from an ideology and as such should be allowed to be criticized in a civilized manor. In my native country of Sweden the extreme left organization EXPO is now supposed, with public funding, to educate among others judges, commissioners and district attorneys in order to better understand hate speech and how to bring dissidents before justice. This is not in accordance with legal tradition of separating executive and legislative power. Racism is of course an irrational mindset, a person should not be judged by the color of skin but rather the individual’s ideas and philosophical values. Having a libertarian perspective is now however seen as alt-right, being truly liberal is now a conservative position.

Here is where things become difficult, should it be illegal to criticize certain parts of Islam? Shouldn’t that religion be judged according to the same standards as Christianity in a truly liberal society? Here is where the political left suddenly becomes allies with political interpretations of Islam. How many old school Marxists find themselves at home in this new ambivalent situation? Hence an increasing number of working class people look to the political right, becoming disenfranchised with postmodernism and illiberal liberalism. Identity politics within proclaimed liberalism has joined forces with leftist post modern thinking with regard to the nation and everything that can be seen as an expression of nationalism, with the increasingly unpopular French President Emmanuel Macron publicly denouncing nationalists as unpatriotic. Chauvinist nationalism tends to go hand in hand with racism no doubt, but assimilating patriotism less so. Still the latter poses a threat towards the idea of an imaginary glorious future without borders and must hence be described as deplorable. Either you’re with us or against us.

Therefore when a geopolitical agenda is being put into question it must thus be discredited, however we must ask ourselves, is this really something that should be done at the expense of the tax payers? Is such behavior on behalf of our governing bodies coinciding with the values of free speech and democracy?  What we are witnessing is a new era of McCarthyism and a battle for hearts and minds.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Unholy religion and religious hypocrisy

This headline really captures the events the latest couple of weeks in Sweden and in France. In France the Mouvement des gilets jaunes – the Yellow Wests, has launched what more resembles an insurrection rather than a protest against the French Government under the globalist Emmanuel Macron. His cabinet’s already implemented and proposed fuel taxes have put such burden upon the populace that it’s had it. Officially the proposed increase in taxation was to counter global warming and act as an intensive to turn France away from fuel made out of non renewable resources. The problem is that France’s tax burden now eclipses that of for instance Sweden. The ordinary average blue collar Joe simply can’t afford the good intentions of the Government. When the ordinary citizen can’t make ends meet idealism is out of the window and at the same time the rift between the political elite and the citizen turns into a chasm, propelling what the elite defines as populism. However it can also be argued that the political establishments constitutes what an be described as anti populists since their agendas can not be implemented without consequences for the middle and working class while the establishment itself is not financially affected by the decisions taken.

The situation is similar in Sweden, however Swedes have a less propensity to take to the streets in anger. Torching cars, hurling stones at the Police and vandalize your surroundings would however be seen as highly counterproductive in a Swedish context, rather it is the kind of behavior one would expect from the autonomous left. The attitude towards political idealism is however changing in Sweden since the Greens have been in in office during the latest term in coalition with the Social Democrats with a less than successful result for all parties involved. During the latest term we have seen continued increases in taxation on fuel and increasing left wing idealism with regards to the right of ownership. Some ordinary citizens have seen their property been made economically useless when it comes to the forestry sector as the State has relabeled their forests as key biotopes thus prohibiting logging. However no economic compensation has been given even though such relabeling has been made a posteriori of the initial purchase of the property by the citizen. The cabinet minister responsible, Karolina Skog,  said during a parliamentary debate that:

“-If the Government would compensate the citizens for every environmental decision we make that would be too expensive.”  

Hence we are witnessing what can only be described as a form of ecocommunism becoming official policy in Sweden, with private ownership of forests even being put into question. Hardly surprising the effected citizens have gone to court of these issues. If the Government wants to protect key biotopes that is perfectly in order, as long as the right of ownership is respected and individual citizens compensated in accordance with market value. However as Skog said, the Government can’t afford it since the budget is focused on other things that are putting a strain upon Swedish society.  This also stands true in the case of France. Many citizens frankly believes that the consideration regarding global warming is simply being used to squeeze additional taxes from the citizens more than anything else.

True, the emissions of carbon dioxide is not a good thing, but the ecohysteria has become a religion in which rational thinking has evaporated itself. A bizarre example of this can be found in Sweden where Greta Thunberg, the daughter of renowned opera singer and asylum activist Malena Ernman, has been on a school strike for months in order to raise awareness of climate change. To begin with, going on a school strike is against the law in Sweden. Greta, who is 15 years old, thus having reached the age of criminal responsibility. However if the pupil is a minor the care takers have the legal responsibility to make sure that the pupil attends school. Her commitment is admirable though, but that does not exclude her from abiding to the law. But instead of being escorted back to school she is praised far and wide. In short order however Greta has reached world fame and had a meeting with the UN Secretary António Guterres at the Climate Meeting in Katowice last week.

The Swedish Church in Limhamn even went so far as to name Greta Thunberg as the successor of Jesus on Twitter, something that brought down a thunderstorm of criticism with people wondering if the Church had become a joke, eventually forcing the Church in Limhamn to withdraw from Twitter. As it turned out however, Greta’s commitment to fight against climate change perhaps isn’t what it’s cracked up to be as it it was revealed that she has had professional behind the scenes help from a PR-consultant, Ingmar Rentzhog, founder of Laika Consulting. Rentzhog was awarded Environment influencer of the year in October and wrote an article together with Greta’s mother, Malena Ernman, in Dagens Nyheter in cooperation with the Arch Bishop of Sweden Antje Jackelén on the subject. The latter is know for her outspoken left wing political agenda, for instance regarding asylum activism and climate issues, something which has caused a lot of members to the leave the Church of Sweden. Ernman has also recently published a book, Scenes from the Heart, in which she writes among other things about her daughters commitment to the environment. What better ways to promote one’s book one may ask than having your daughter being promoted as the successor of Jesus?

Ernman has further personally benefited from her own asylum activism, being appointed by the Government to the Council for Culture, due to her commitment. So here we can see that there are personal interests intertwined with altruism, just as a Government can use the the paradigm “for the greater good” with reference to climate change in order to fill the budgetary gaps. Hence what we see can only be described as an example of an unholy religion and religious hypocrisy, both in France and Sweden, with an increasing number of average blue collar Joes, who will bear the financial burden for the idealism of the establishment, becoming fed up.

 

The Yellow vests – Just a French tradition?

Few are surprised over the protests in France turning into rioting and arson, most tend to view this as just another part of French tradition going back to the Storming of the Bastille and the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 and a propensity towards vandalism.

However that would be a case of oversimplifying things. Using rioting, arson and vandalism as a political method in a democracy is of course not acceptable, and perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions in court. But I would personally find it unlikely that these “expressions of protest” are the work of ordinary protesters, by now numbering an estimated 75 000 over the entire country, and more likely the result of simply people on the political extremes or hoodlums taking advantage of the situation. The fact is that the Yellow vests is a leaderless protest that to the greatest extent involves ordinary citizens that have become fed up with the neoliberal agenda of the French government under Emmanuel Macron, increasingly seen as a puppet of Brussels, more than anything else.

As such the increase in fuel taxes, that have caused an increase in price level of 25% only this year, legitimized as concern for the climate, instead could be seen as a catalyst for an all out disenfranchisement with the political establishment. The yellow vest is required by all French motorists to be kept in their cars in case of a breakdown as a matter of safety precaution. Now it has instead become the symbol of protest by the average citizen, regardless of political inclinations. The French State has over the years had a fairly well developed social security system, perhaps a bit too well developed, and that system is beginning to crack. Hence the French Government has begun to make significant cutbacks, bringing down rage from primarily the French political left and the unions. However the strengthened political right is also increasingly fed up, seeing Macron as subservient to Brussels and not looking to primarily defend France’s interests but rather to uphold the interests of the European Union and the financial and political elites.

Here we can see that nationalism is on the rise, not only in France but throughout Europe and it is an existential threat to the European Union, or at least against it’s current political paradigm who’s end goal is a federal United States of Europe. The democratic gap between Brussels and the ordinary citizens of the member states is widening at an increasing rate. Personally I believe that few citizens have anything against cooperation between sovereign states, who’s political system they can have at least some form of influence over through their votes. The problem is that the EU-Commission consists of technocrats that no ordinary citizens have had any say in regarding their appointment. The EU-Commission is what sets the agenda in today’s Europe, the EU-Parliament is just an obstacle that is there to give a guise of democratic legitimacy. When an increasing number of national leaders openly say that the national sovereignty of the member countries must be given up to Brussels Euroscepticism is becoming a increasingly valid position.

The belief in the rule of the pro-EU/globalist national States is dwindling, and even more so in a European State. With the exceptionally pro-EU Macron putting other interests than the ordinary citizen’s first protests are taking a deeper meaning. Protesters wielding the French Tricolor could be taken as a sign that there are to a large extent nationalist motives behind the protest. Macron has been falling rapidly in popularity after his election in which he ran against the nationalist Le Pen. The election was seen by many, not least in Brussels, as a watershed for Europe. But if there is one politician and a political narrative that will gain in popularity it is Le Pen and Euroscepticism.

Europe is becoming increasingly politically polarized, liberalism and pro-EU socialism less influential while conservatism is becoming ever more a force to reckoned with throughout the continent. This is due to an increasing number of citizens feeling that their interests and plights are being disregarded and the feeling of both political and cultural belonging being diminished by globalists. As such the protests can be traced back to a tradition the revolutions of 1789, 1830 and 1848, but as such they are not just an expression of vandalism. These are expressions of a populace feeling their political elite having lost connection with the realities of the ordinary citizen.

Turkstream, the Berlin-Baghdad Railway of our time and the geopolitical importance of the Black Sea

The Nordstream 2 project has caused significant political turmoil between Germany and Russia on one side and the United States on the other. Washington has been quite adamant that Germany, the engine of European economy, is putting itself in too much reliance on Russian energy and thus becomes vulnerable for political pressure from the Kremlin. This a relevant view, however it is also part of a greater US geopolitical agenda in which trade is part of maintaining US political hegemony over Western Europe. This comes at a time where the trust in US support in regard to security for Europe is being put into question by for instance Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The situation in Ukraine, that has been brewing ever since the ousting of the elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, must be seen as an integral part of the competition between the US and Russia over Europe. Yanukovych was corrupt, there is hardly any dispute over that issue, however he still was the democratically elected President of Ukraine who was driven out of office through a violent coup, a coup that was supported by the West with considerable meddling by for for instance Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland from the US State Department. That Russia then seized the Crimean Peninsula, with a Russian majority, was hardly surprising as the new nationalist government in Kiev deprived the Russian language it’s minority status in the country and most of all discussed to terminate the Russian lease of the naval base in Sevastopol. This would have deprived the Black Sea Flotilla of it’s home port. Hence Russia saw few other options than a military solution. At the same time Russia became even more of a diplomatic pariah in the eyes of the West, something that to some was seen a political benefit. The ATO operation in the predominantly Russian Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine, where Russian separatists refused to oblige to the new government in Kiev and would receive substantial support from Moscow both with regards to materiel and manpower, although denied by Russia, sparked a bloody conflict that persists to this day.

Only yesterday a naval confrontation at the Kerch Strait between units of the Ukrainian Navy and Russian naval assets from the Border Guard brought the slumbering conflict into the World’s attention once again. As a response the current Ukrainian President Petro Poroschenko wishes to impose martial law in the country, something which comes at a rather opportune moment as the Ukrainian Presidential Election is due on 31 March next year and according to the polls Poroschenko is likely to loose. If the true intent was to provoke Russia for his own political gain this further strengthens at least my view of Ukraine as a failed state. The latter unfortunately following a historical tradition going back to the last days of WWI and it’s immediate aftermath.

The dilemma when it comes to the situation of blame game is that Ukraine, along with the West, does not recognize Crimea as part of Russia, the Gordian knot in this situation. This is hardly surprising as the Russian annexation contradicts international law. However Russia on it’s side claims that the Western attitude towards the secession of Kosovo from Yugoslavia through a referendum, thus creating a new international legal paradigme, and hence the Crimean and Donbass question should be regraded accordingly. Regardless of which side one takes Ukraine also has territory along the northern shore of the Azov Sea and has according to international law the right to navigation. The Russians claim that Ukraine failed to inform the Russian authorities of their transit through the now de facto albeit not de jure entirely Russian Kerch Strait, something which Kiev denies, and both sides blame the other of dangerous maneuvering before shots where fired and the Ukrainian vessels were seized by the Russians. Regardless who was the instigator of this show down Russia will however be seen as the sole aggressor in the West as this fits the official narrative. Reportedly the incident in the Kerch Strait was also followed by Ukrainian artillery shelling of the breakaway region of Donetsk in the Donbass further north.

Why is then the Crimea of such importance to Russia? There are several answers to this question. There is a historical perspective, the Crimea was annexed by the Russians in 1783. The result of the Turkish-Russian War of 1768-1774 was that Crimea had become an independent state under Russian influence albeit primarily populated by Crimean Tartars. After Tartar revolts against the influx of Russians Catherine the Great dispatched Count Potemkin to deal with the situation and the Crimea became part of Russia and would remain so until 1954 when Secretary Khrushchev seeded the peninsula to the Ukrainian SSR. Under the Soviet era this was of less importance but very much so after the break up of the Soviet Union as implied by the lease of the naval facilities in Sevastopol by Kiev to Russia. The city itself has great historical value and is a matter of national pride for the Russians as it was highly contested, both during the Crimean War of 1853-1856 as well as during World War II when it was captured by Romanian and German forces after a bloody siege and then retaken by the Red Army in 1944.

However there are more current reasons why Russia sees the Crimea and the Black Sea as so important to it’s national interests. When Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO the West gained even greater access to the Black Sea. With the development of the US missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, allegedly to counter a yet not existent Iranian threat towards Europe, however equally deployable against Russia, Moscow saw the international security balance offset. Russia has also always had a yearning for the access to the Mediterranean, thus their naval base in Tartus in Syria and the support for Damascus in the ongoing civil war in the country, a civil war that more correctly should be described as WW III in miniature due to the considerable involvement of external geopolitical players.

There is also a substantial economic aspect with regard to Turkey and the EU. When Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 in 2015 Moscow’s reply was economic sanctions, the latter hitting Turkish economy hard. With conflicting interests between Ankara and Washington with regard to the Kurdish Question in Syria and Iraq and the desire of the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to wrestle the political influence in the Levant out of the hands of the Saudis, the foremost ally of the US in the region and one of the main guarantors of the petrodollar, things have become increasingly complicated. The latter has manifested itself in the deployment of Turkish forces in Qatar as a diplomatic rift developed between Doha and Riyadh, with Qatar even receiving support from Iran, and the Turkish denunciation of Saudi Arabia after the political murder of the Saudi dissident Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, a substantial political realignment took place and diplomatic ties between Ankara and Moscow mended. The failed coup attempt against Erdoğan in 2016, which Ankara claims was masterminded by the Fethullah Gülen movement, also brought US-Turkish relations the freezing point as Washington refused to extradite Fethullah Gülen from the US. When Turkey, one of the most important members of NATO, decided to purchase Russian S-400 SAM systems rather than the US Patriot PAC3 relations took an even worse turn, with Washington blocking Ankara from receiving the F-35 even though Turkey is a member of the project. Instead there has been suggestions of a domestic Turkish design, with Russian assistance.

The cooperation between the former arch enemies of Turkey and Russia doesn’t stop at military projects though, the announcement of the Turkstream pipeline will have even greater economic and political implications. This will allow not only Turkey, a substantial market in it’s own right, being supplied with Russian gas, but ultimately also Southeastern Europe. When the political bad boy of the EU, Hungary’s PM Viktor Órban visited Moscow earlier this fall he made it clear that he certainly would see it beneficial to have Hungary acting as a transit country for Russian gas. Thus Turkstream would allow Russian gas to circumvent Ukraine, which Russia is embroiled in considerable conflict with, and reaching the European market. As Russian gas is considerably less expensive than buying American LNG, this would be of great interest to for instance Germany, the economic engine of the European Union. Of note is also that a diplomatic row has developed between Hungary and Ukraine, as Budapest is less than happy with the nationalist government in Kiev as there is a Hungarian minority in the Ukrainian region of Zakarpattia who’s language status is under threat, just as the Russian minority in Eastern Ukraine. With Hungarian passports handed out to Ukrainians of Hungarian descent and diplomatic fruitful relations nurtured between Budapest and Moscow relations between Budapest and Kiev has on the other hand been on a steady decline.

Hence one could see the Turkstream pipeline as the Berlin-Baghdad Railway of our time as it will have considerable political implications as spheres of influence collides. Only this time Germany, as well as the US that has replaced Great Britain’s geopolitical role, have taken a seat in one of the cars and instead it’s Russia and Turkey that is steering the train.

With an increasingly authoritarian liberalism it is nowadays conservative to be truly liberal

In an article in The Economist on the 17th of August 2018 Claire Fox wrote about the dangers of illiberal liberalism with great insight. She saw not the rise of the alt-right as the biggest threat towards our democracy and free speech but rather an increasingly illiberal liberalism and that stands true not only in America but also in Europe and my native country of Sweden. We live in an age where proclaimed liberals gladly have accepted the collective before the individual, especially when it comes to civic rights. The increasingly federative European Union is a perfect example of this. Guy Verhofstadt, former PM of Belgium and now the leader of ALDE, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, in the European Parliament, is an outspoken proponent of a United States of Europe in which the sovereignty of the member states will be discarded on behalf of Brussels, something that has caused a rift in the EU where for instance the Visegrad Group are increasingly at odds with Brussels. The latter is hardly surprising as these countries that were under the Communist yoke see the federative agenda as renewed threat to their independence and is not what they joined for. After all, no voters have had any true say in the appointment of any of the EU Commissioners and there is a lack of principle of public in Brussels’s political process, a substantial democratic deficit.

Speaking of independence, the 2nd Amendment is a vital part of the American soul as a well armed citizenry was instrumental in the creation of the nation. The birth of the United States came as shots were fired as London tried to disarm the unruly colonists, as they had demanded political representation in Parliament and not wanting to just being viewed as source for taxation, but no avail, thus resulting in the Declaration of Independence, and the American Revolution was on. Hence civilian ownership of legal firearms can be used as an indication of the amount of trust a government has for it’s citizens. Hence it comes to no surprise that many gun owners in the US vote Republican, hardly surprising given people like Diane Feinstein (D), as predominantly Democrat governed states like California has restrictions that in some cases are more stringent than in many European countries. This has to do with the Democratic Party having a view upon the interaction between the State and the citizen that much more corresponds to that of many European states. However, civilian legal gun ownership is seen as a problem in Europe, something that among other things manifested itself in the outright assault by the European Commission, defying even it’s own legislation, upon civilian ownership of firearms after the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015, even though these deeds were carried out by Islamist terrorists using illegal firearms. With the risk of being seen as a peddler of conspiracy theories it’s not without that the question arises however whether the European Commission is more concerned of a well armed citizenry more than Islamist terrorist as the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force might be put into jeopardy by an increasingly discontented populace?

Outspoken liberal profiles like George Soros are among those that vehemently supports restrictions in the civic liberties such as gun ownership, but also has an agenda of globalism in which the individual nation is to be dissolved for the greater good on behest of supranational entities, such as the EU. Most citizens don’t care about gun legislation however, as long as they themselves are not affected, but free speech is of greater concern as it affects us all. The perception of the nation is also becoming much more important as the Western European states have become culturally much more heterogeneous through immigration, another field in which aforementioned Soros is highly involved.

Multiculturalism is today by liberals and socialists seen as the natural state of order, to question this narrative is seen as at best conservative but most commonly as xenophobic and outright racist. As Claire Fox pointed out, the mere suggestion that multiculturalism might not be working and that the traditional liberal values such as free speech, even though one might not agree with certain views, are a necessity for a democratic society, is being labeled as non grata even in the legal sense, especially if questioning certain values found within various religions such as Islam. In several European countries, as well in the United States if we for instance see to people like Linda Sarsour, Islamists have infiltrated, sometimes quite overtly, the mainstream political parties as any politicians also fail to know the difference between the religion of Islam and the political ideology of Islamism. This stands true to several political parties in Sweden, such as the Social Democratic Party, the liberal Center Party and the Greens. When the agenda and values of the Islamists have collided their parties official values things have become outright politically embarrassing. However there is a lack of really dealing with these issues. Why? In two words, political correctness. There is a complete and utter fear of the R-word within the political establishment.

This serves the agenda of the Islamists as this fits like a glove as their true intent can be described a classical form of PSY-ops. Infiltrate, sometimes with the knowledge of the establishment, often in accordance with the logic of gaining minority votes, and then transform public debate in a way that any criticism of their agenda is to labeled as racist and and expression of Islamophobia, even if that might not be the case. What is for certain however is that racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia will increase in the long run as the majority population will become disenfranchised with the political establishment, turning to what the latter defines as populism instead. This also serves the interests of radical Islamists as their agenda is thus becoming just in the eyes of their minorities. Hence if this situation is not smothered in the crib this will become a self fulfilling prophecy. In this situation many liberals have accepted the socialist view that what things all come down to is a matter of distribution policy. That non material matters such as culture, ideology and of the being of things does play a significant role in how people perceive society does not fit in a classical socialist narrative, contradicting the very idea of socioeconomic class while also explaining the growth of conservatism among the working class. This is also the case in the eyes of liberal globalists, as they tend to view of the nation as an obsolete remnant of an old “evil” world. Hence nationalism is, regardless if it chauvinistic or not, regarded as a deplorable cultural and political expression. This view stands true in cases were nationalism has had a racist component, such as in Nazi Germany and in the Balkans in the 90’s, but it’s not prevalent as official policy in for instance the United States were everyone is an American first, second Irish-American, Hispanic-American and so forth. That said the United States as a nation is to a high degree based upon an Anglo-Saxon cultural tradition and philosophical ideas formed during the Enlightenment. Thus assimilation has been what has made the United States what it is, or at least was. National boundaries is however increasingly being seen as morally wrong by proclaimed liberals. To add to this e idea of the nation as a remnant of the old world, rather than a guarantor of society, came in the wake of 9/11 the Patriot Act which meant that civil liberties have been curtailed in the most unconstitutional way.

Postmodern political and philosophical thinking, a stew made out of new interpretations of Marxism seasoned with liberal globalism, has however put things on end. Today it is considered alt-right to have libertarian or conservative inclinations. To have a healthy dose of pride of one’s nation, i.e. not being a chauvinist or a bigot, and voicing the need to maintain some form cohesion of society, regardless of socioeconomic class, is nonetheless viewed as being deplorable as this contradicts the perception of the reality of liberal globalists and cosmopolitan socialists that firmly believe in a world without boundaries. The thing is, as reality catches up and these beliefs are proven wrong, there is an increasing willingness to silence free speech.

Certain “truths” can not be put into question. In Sweden’s case immigration has caused a parliamentary crisis as the right wing Sweden Democrats, who question the current immigration policies, have a balance of power in Parliament and no one from the establishment is willing to form a government that even has to rely on their passive support. In the universities feminist agenda in the field of science is rule, to question the scientific credence of certain research, even in the field of medicine, have ended up in academic hearings. As mentioned previously Islamist presence within the political establishment has also led to several bizarre events, for instance the municipality chairman in Gothenburg, a Social Democrat, being sued for hate crime after stopping an Islamist event in a public forum since she had the integrity to say that these people’s views did correspond with the democratic views necessary for using a public locality. Perhaps this will open people’s eyes for what is happening in this country and that Islamism is not an ideology that corresponds with liberal views of democracy? However in other European countries, such as in Britain and Austria, anti blasphemy laws have been passed, laws that only serves the agenda of the Islamists and to the forfeit of secular Muslims that wish to assimilate into society. What one must remember is that a religion is no different from an ideology, which people must have the right to criticize in a democratic liberal society, a religion has nothing to do with the color of skin. However these laws, together with political movements like Sharia for Belgium and a substantial spike in Islamist terrorism in Western Europe certainly continues to fuel the rift between primarily the Visegrad countries and Brussels as these countries refuse to be part of a socialist/liberal federative multicultural globalist agenda, that today is very much part of official EU policy, ardently supported by people like George Soros and Guy Verhofstadt. However it’s not the right wing governments of for instance Hungary and the Czech Republic that are the real danger towards European cooperation, it’s the federalists in Brussels as nationalism to a large extent is a counter reaction to their agenda, the Hungarians haven’t forgotten the year of 1848 when nationalism and liberalism stood hand in hand on the barricades, the Treaty of Trianon or the Revolution of 1956 for that matter. Hence national sovereignty is not taken lightly upon, taking both chauvinist as well as sound expressions. In the Czech Republic a unified Parliament, even including the former Communists, voted to make civilian Czech firearm owners as part of the Czech Defense from a legal perspective, thus circumventing meddling by Brussels in internal Czech affairs. As with the Hungarians the Czechs have first hand experience of both external and domestic political oppression, thus this decision was quite understandable and along the lines of the classical quote by the reformist socialist George Orwell:

“-That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

Hence with an increasingly authoritarian liberalism it is nowadays conservative to be truly liberal..

Vår tids kulaker

Efter att debatten kring löntagarfonderna under 1970- och 80-talen ebbat ut och Socialdemokraterna mer kommit att bli ett medelklass- och tjänstemannaparti än ett traditonellt arbetarparti så var det nog många som trodde att frågor som fördelningspolitik mer skulle komma att handla om skattesatser etc. Avregleringar har skett, även under socialdemokratiskt styre och begreppet väpnad revolution har sedan länge förpassats till historieböckerna. Efter Järnridåns fall var Vänsterpartiet Kommunisterna nödgade att byta namn till Vänsterpartiet och likt Socialdemokraterna beskriva sig som ett reformistiskt socialistiskt parti. Vänsterpartiet har dock aldrig behövt ta något politiskt ansvar, man har kunnat agera som den yttersta vänsterns samvete och ställa krav, men aldrig behövt leverera eller svara för sin politik.

I takt med att skillnaderna mellan svensk borgerlighet och socialdemokratin blivit mer en fråga om fernissa så har således V appellerat till de mer vänsterideologiskt sinnade som ansett att S svikit sitt ursprung och korrumperats av många decennier av maktposition, liksom hos människor vars inblick i nationalekonomi är bristfällig samtidigt som viljan till samhällsförändring är påtaglig. Det är här lätt att se att de båda politiska ytterkanterna vunnit allt större väljarstöd. Intressant att se är också att såväl V som SD är EU-skeptiska, om än av olika orsaker. SD värnar nationalstaten emedan V intar en mer klassisk internationalistisk kommunistisk hållning och ser europeisk federalism som ett uttryck för kapitalismens makt.

Från socialdemokratiskt håll har det alltid funnits ett hatkärleksförhållande till Vänsterpartiet. Under det Kalla kriget tilläts aldrig VPK ha något inflytande över försvars- och säkerhetspolitik eftersom partiet var att se som femtekolonnare i Moskvas ledband. Dock var VPK ett lämpligt stöd för områden såsom socialpolitiken. Attityden har bestått in i modern tid eftersom Socialdemokraterna varit på det klara att tillväxt varit en grundförutsättning för avtalsrörelserna ända sedan Saltsjöbadsavtalet 1938, även om debatten kring löntagarfonderna var ett avsteg från den andan.

I det senaste riksdagsvalet fanns två klara segrare, de båda politiska ytterligheterna, SD och V. Även om S blev största parti så har som bekant ingetdera block kunna få egen majoritet givet SD:s position som tredje största parti. Den svenska liberalismen har i sammanhanget kommit att bli som en åsna mellan två hötappar som inte vet åt vilket håll man skall gå. Samtidigt som de båda blocken anammat delar av SD:s hårdare hållning beträffande migrationspolitiken, av ren nödvändighet, så har S samtidigt gjort en ideologisk vänstersväng och tagit sig an Vänsterpartiets käpphäst om vinster i välfärden med liv och lust. Dock stannar inte vänstergiren med det, Regeringens inställning till äganderätten, som de facto ingår i Europakonventionen om mänskliga rättigheter, framstår ha devalverats påtagligt. Det märks inte minst kring de pågående rättsfallen om fjällnära skog där skogsägare belagts med avverkningsförbud med hänvisning till naturvärden utan någon som helst ekonomisk kompensation, vilket föranlett att dessa stämt staten. Det hela stannar emellertid inte där, de senaste årens stora migration har bidragit till den stora bostadsbristen i Sverige, något som kräver ett påtagligt behov av nybyggnation. Således tillsatte Regeringen genom Bostadsminister Peter Eriksson (MP) en utredning, “Ett snabbare bostadsbyggande“, med Vänsterpartiets vice ordförande Nooshi Dadgostar som utredare. Dadgostar kom fram till följande slutsats:

”Vi menar att det är orimligt att utgångspunkten ska vara att kommunerna ska betala 125 procent i ersättning för mark avsedd för allmän plats eller allmänna byggnader som skola.”

Istället menar hon att vid byggnation av samhällsnyttiga verksamheter så skall ersättningen i helhet tas bort. Det innebär i praktiken konfiskation av enskilda medborgares egendom, i strid med Europakonventionen. När så t.o.m. socialdemokrater försvarar Vänsterpartiet och menar att partiet inte längre är ett kommunistiskt parti så är det inte utan att undertecknad undrar hur det är ställt med den analytiska slutledningsförmågan? Vänsterpartiet ifrågasätter äganderätten och vill nationalisera produktionsmedlen, det är och förblir en ren kommunistisk inställning, oavsett vad partiet än kallar sig.

Den tynande skaran av svenska bönder, vilka har ekonomiska dyrtider orsakade av såväl vädrets makter som skeva konkurrensförutsättningar och skattepålagor, är knappast benyttigade av att ses som vår tids kulaker. Svensk livsmedelsindustri är likaså beroende av inhemsk produktion på samma sätt som vår beredskap. Detta borde rimligtvis SAP ha fullkomlig insikt om, likväl tillåts företrädare för ideologiska utopier i såväl utredningar som praktisk handling alltmer diktera villkoren. 2018 borde rimligtvis inte jordägare ses som kulaker..

Vad förenar kosmopolitiska socialister och nyliberala globalister?

I korthet två ord, nationalstaten och allt som kan tolkas som uttryck för nationalism. Detta fenomen är högaktuellt, inte bara i Sverige med den gordiska knut som svensk politik just utgör, utan likaså i omvärlden. Alexandra Pascalidou uttryckte sin bestörtning över den “antisemitism” som George Soros utsatts för i sitt ursprungliga hemland Ungern där denne varit på fullkomlig kollisonslinje med landets högerorienterade premiärminister Viktor Órban och Fidesz. Jag fick inget svar när jag påpekade att Soros credo var av underordnad betydelse utan att pudelns kärna snarare handlar om dennes aktiva politiska kampanj gentemot nationalstaten. Soros har under många år varit aktiv dels med filantropisk verksamhet men likaså politiskt arbete, ett arbete där värnadet om demokrati stundom hamnat i gråzonen med vad som kan defineras som omstörtande verksamhet. Att en socialist således talar sig varm om en kapitalistisk globalist förefaller en smula märkligt, den socioekonomiska analysen mellan dessa två borde rimligtvis vara diametralt olika?

Vad som förenar dem är dock en avsky för nationalstaten och företrädare för denna. Dock är inte alla nationalister och konservativa per definion chauvinister och xenofober, det är en viktig distinktion att göra. Men av politiska skäl görs så inte. Att Aftonbladet exempelvis inför valet initierade en brunsmetningskampanj av MED, trots att detta liberalkonservativa parti, vilket till skillnad mot SD, intar en positiv hållning till såväl NATO och EU, och beskrev partiet som högerextremt efter att tidningen anlitat vänsterextremisten och rasisten Tobias Hübinette från Expo som sakkunnig, är indikitativt för hur antiintellektualistisk debatten blivit. Hübinette figurerade i utredningen av det s.k. Fryshusmordet på en ung skinhead och har hävdat att västerländska män som gifter sig med asiatiska kvinnor eg. är pedofiler som tar sig asiatiska kvinnor som substitut. Att mainstreammedia tar sig dylika sängkamrater kan således sägas vara en logisk följd av ett alltmer identitetspolitiskt drivet samtal i det offentliga rummet och ett uttryck för “makten framförallt”.

Vi har hamnat i en situation som kan liknas vid George Bushs famösa uttalande inför den illegala invasionen av Irak 2003:

“-Either you´re with us or against us!”

Detta kännetecknar också försöken till en regeringsbildning i Sverige just nu, C och L fällde som bekant Ulf Kristersson som förslag till ny regeringschef eftersom en borgerlig regering skulle vara beroende av SD:s passiva stöd, givet Sveriges minoritetsparlamentaristiska modell. Detta trots att Reinfeldt-ministären befann sig i samma sits. Socialdemokraterna har i samband med detta hyllat Annie Lööfs “integritet”. Den ekonomiska analysen mellan Centerns nylberalism torde dock stå milsvitt från vad man skulle definiera som klassisk socialdemokratisk politik, likväl är Annie Lööf i socialdemokraternas ögon just nu det bästa som funnits alltsedan sedan skivat bröd uppfanns.

Vad detta egentligen handlar om är rent maktspel i sann Machiavellisk anda, Annie Lööf är bra ur socialdemokratiskt perspektiv för att hon splittrat den svenska borgerligheten och bekräftat SAP:s beskrivning av SD som moraliskt non grata. Lööf intar en extrem hållning till migration, bl.a. genom att förorda fri migration och månggifte samt har hävdat att Sveriges befolkning skall kunna växa till 30 miljoner genom migration, även om de människor som kommer initialt inte skall få ta full del av de skattefinansierade välfärdssystemen. MP och V har gett prov på liknande inställning, undantaget att välfärden skall vara för alla, medborgare eller ej, låt vara att finansieringen är höljd i dunkel. Socialdemokraterna däremot inser innerst inne att vänsterpopulisters och nyliberalers hållning står i motsatsförhållande till en bibehållen allmän skattefinansierad välfärd. Likväl har återkommande retorik som: “-I mitt Europa byggs inga murar!” hörts och IF Metall har informerat sina medlemmar om att migrationspolitiken på sikt är en ekonomiskt gynnsam affär, även om den initialt kostar pengar. Kruxet är att detta är baserat på ett tänkande utifrån ett best case scenario som förutsätter att en rad olika ansvarsområden som integration, utbildning och sysselsättning fungerar till belåtenhet och att tillväxten är god. För stunden haltar utvecklingen betänkligt på ett flertal av dessa områden.

Sverige är dock utan tvekan i behov av arbetskraftsinvandring på ett flertal områden, men flyktingmottagande och arbetskraftsinvandring är per definition inte samma sak även om de ibland korrellerar med varandra, som fallet t.ex. var under de goda åren under 1950- och -60-talen. I allmänhetens ögon beskrivs dock all befolkningsökning som något positivt. Det finns ingen vilja att diskutera saker och tings beskaffenhet med empiriska ögon, att erkänna att de “sanningar” som presenterats i åratal kanske inte varit så fullt med den empiriska sanningen överenstämmande vilket skulle innebära att man framstår som lögnaktiga. Att ifrågasätta påbjudna sanningar är därmed liktydigt med att “fiska i grumliga vatten”, oavsett på vilket sätt och med vilken utgångspunkt ett ifrågasättande sker. Identitetspolitiken antar härigenom totalitära tendenser: “-Either you´re with us or against us!”

Inom LO-kollektivet återfinns en påtaglig konsternation varför antalet konservativa arbetare ökat kraftigt över åren? SD är rent objektivt sett inte ett arbetarvänligt parti. Men alltfler hemmahörande inom arbetar- och medelklass ställer samma fråga som Leif Östling: “-Och vad fan får jag?” i takt med att skatteviljan minskar eftersom många upplever att man inte får valuta för det skyhöga skattetryck som föreligger. Likaså är ett värnande av nationalstatens suveränitet, i skenet av ett alltmer federalistiskt sinnat Bryssel, där Liberalerna utan tvekan är att anse som Bryssels förlängda arm i svensk politik, och ståndpunkten att medborgarskapet skall ha ett mervärde – vilket står i kontrast till öppna gränser och fri migration, något farligt för identitetspolitiskt drivna, oavsett om dessa utgörs av globalistiska nyliberaler eller kosmopolitiska socialister. Det spelar således i sammanhanget ingen roll att EU-skeptisicm och ifrågasättande av förd migrationspolitik inte nödvändigtvis har med rasism och främlingsfentlighet att göra, medborgarskapet har ju inte per defintion med hudfärg att göra, ifrågasättandet i sig är något farligt. Därmed tillskrivs även liberalkonservativa såsom MED eptitet som högerextrema, även om dessa inte ens är EU-skeptiker.

När så alltfler medborgare blir missnöjda med den samhällsutveckling som råder så bemöts dock detta missnöje med att beskriva meningsmotståndare som varandes “deplorables”, mindre vetande och “mänskliga brunråttor”, något som snarare bara tjänar till ökad politisk polarisering och bekräftar de missnöjdas bild av det politiska etablissemanget som blickandes ut från sina elefenbenstorn och höga hästar. Realpolitik är i dagens politiska kontext något som tillhör det förgångna, det finns ingen plats för detta i identitetspolitikens tidevarv. Detta är vad som förenar kosmopolitiska socialister och nyliberala globalister idag, men det är också det enda..