Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Freedom of speech, the false freedom and the hidden freedom.

August 18, 2017

What is meant in the west by freedom of expression, generally known as freedom of speech, is generally known. As a rough idea we can take the renaissance with names as Erasmus of Rotterdam,Galileo and Montaigne.  The rights have been won through centuries of struggle till today. Meanwhile they have been  changed, improved  and subverted.

I will start with the limitations most of us accept today.

Libel – you are not allowed to defame somebody by unfactual  statements.

Hate crimes – spoken or written. Here there is still a gray zone but in general racist symbols, speech or writings are not tolerated

Historical falsifications – denial of documented past atrocities such as the genocide of armenians or the holocaust are allowed sometimes.  The matter is discussed.

In general in Sweden you may say anything about anybody, however an open discussion about islam or its founder is impossible in practice.

Does this mean that freedom of speech is otherwise unlimited. Taking some thought this is shown to be wrong.

Limitations are usually based on the principle that everybody has the right to express themselves, undisturbed. You cannot enter a church and talk about whatever or in a closed meeting or disturb a  public meeting. You cannot sing at a public meeting  to interrupt a speaker etc.

By these limits you can see the outline of the hidden freedom.

But first, freedom of speech as a thought is a human right for the individual or groups of individuals to talk to  other individuals but is has been counterfeited,

The false freedom of speech is that money or power  gives someone more right to  present opinions or goods. Here you have taken way freedom of speech for the individuals to drown it in the loudspeaker of wealth. You are using the nature of freedom of speech to strangle freedom of speech. Neither mcdonald, volvo or  lotto are individuals.

Now let us try to give the hidden freedom a name. I suggest freedom from impression. That nobody must receive impressions that somebody else chooses. Here, as with freedom of speech, there are limits. Freedom from impression is not a bar to the free association between individuals  but to give individuals the ability to resist Power and Money’s obvious (obvious!!) priority . It  should not hinder the Contact between authorities and Citizens but can be tested from case to case to distinguish propaganda from information.

It is not meant to hinder individuals or groups of individuals from letting the public know their opinions (protected by freedom of speech). But with this and similar limits freedom from impressions is for one’s self  to decide what impressions to receive.

As an exempel how freedom from impression could appear. On the sidewalk there would only be a sign for what kind of business it is such as Ikea, Walmart, Ford. Inside, invisible from the street, the presentation would be as we  are used to.  Breaking these rules would lead to fines, Radio and Tv commercials only to those who clearly want it. Freedom from impressions, just as freedom of speech, couldn’t be given away. As a trial, impression free buildings or areas could be established. The reaction of the business community would give clearer idea of this freedom.

You may, hopefully find better exemples.

As for freedom from impressions, we have still 500 years to make up. We find it difficult just to imagine  what it is. It is considered as a matter of course that the individual is a funnel where Money and Power can pour anything they like. And what do you as an isolated individual have to resist.

You may feel the freedom from impressions is an ivory Tower Construction instead of a protection for free thoughts for individuals. That your feelings and opinions are trade goods although you haven’t offered them to anybody. Keep on that way and offer yourself and those following you to the  Cages  of Money and Power.






The pig in Nato’s poke: what is missing?

March 1, 2017

For Sweden, to join Nato, is to choose between malaria and the plague. With malaria you don’t feel very well but the plague is usually deadly. From this viewpoint the question is not to join but how to join.  The first that strikes one is the unanalyzed negotiation situation. Some demands are difficult to get a hearing, others are important for Sweden but minor for Nato. I will mention two:a. Compensation for damage from military maneuvers to reindeer husbandry which is central to the same people, who are the original inhabitants of the area. b: An involuntary scarcity of women. To solve these is neither difficult or expensive for Nato.

Two major problems remain.  The first is the presence of nuclear weapons on swedish soil. Every possible aggressor will be convinced that these are present whether the government stonewalls or not. Nato will not accept such a restriction. But nuclear devices are not only a danger for Sweden but for each Nato country. Knowledge how to make smaller nuclear devices is becoming more common, knowledge how to move these is becoming more common (you don’t need missiles) and the will to offer one’s life to explode a nuclear device is becoming more common.

A more constructive solution is that Nato establishes a powerful authority for an international elimination of nuclear weapons coupled to an internationally accepted whistleblower law.  This is in the interest of Nato, just as much, as a military form of defence.

The second problem is practically absent in swedish Nato discussions. I present a few short scenarios to make it visible. a. A number of IKEA stores are burnt to the ground. Should Nato take military action? b. A country nationalizes french oil holdings without compensation. Should Nato take military action? c. A country prevents fishing vessels from Nato countries from fishing within its territorial waters. Should Nato take military action?

As you may notice, I have not listed any US corporations in these scenarios. It is no point in blaming others instead of starting to clean up our own back yard. The problem is just as much Europe’s.

To be exact. Nato membership means that  tin boxes with swedish soldiers can come from Moldavia, Svalbard and Afghanistan??!! (What Nato country borders on Afghanistan?) But this is done to defend Nato’s  borders and prevent even greater casualties.

Sweden should demand that no Swedish military action should be taken outside Nato’s borders unless it is followed within a month by a clear majority vote  in parliament. (the pearl harbor rule). Even if Nato does not agree, the question will not disappear and not only in Sweden.

Shall swedish soldiers die to defend Coca Cola, Ikea and Mcdonalds? Finally, does Sweden seek membership in a defence alliance or in an assembly  for economic aggression?




Sarajevo on the Baltic

September 26, 2016

The Balkans have traditionally been an the object of the great powers’  ambitions. 1914 in Sarajevo, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire was assasinated. This led
to a serie of events that became the First World War, the results of which still beset us today. The Great Powers of Europe were taken by surprise quite simply.
Today we have a similar situation in the Baltic. In articles, speeches, and plans it has been discussed how Nato and Russia, separately, or simultaneously can prepare an
armed conflict there. Here I wish to discuss something  nobody takes up: the risk for such a conflict when nobody wants it. I want to show that Tjernobil and Fukushima, the risk for an armed conflict is great, could happen at any moment, but can be limited by a thoughtout plan of action.

the fire hazard

After the invasion of Sovjet Russia at the end of the Second World War, the Baltic was treated as a part of Russia. People from Russia were moved there or were drawn there by various rewards.When the Iron Curtain fell in 1989 and the Baltic states regained their independence, these people were stranded. In this article I call them the Rbalts. The original inhabitants I designate as Urbalts. One possibility was that the Urbalts could have realized what an advantage this was and the Rbalts what an unique opportunity this offered, but the recent oppression and both groups unwillingness to integrate has been too great. We have in other words a firehazard that can be ignited at any moment by any spark of conflict. It is an illusion to imagine that, whoever runs the government, Russia would remain passive if Rbalts are killed. It is just a great illusion to imagine that Nato would remain passive if “volunteers” crossed the border of any Baltic state to support Rbalts who cause disturbances.

the fire alarm

To prevent this, an agreement must be signed, quickly, between Nato and ´Russia to handle the situation.A “direct line” must be established between Kreml and the Nato for swift intervention before the situation gets out of hand. In other words, an EU muddle such as in the migrant question is to ask for a military conflict in the Baltic.

the sparks

a. a Baltic government that faces an election defeat because it is too corrupt or incompetent, is tempted to play the ethnic card openly or behind the scenes.

b. Urbaltic or Rbaltic xenophobes. That means those that not only hate other ethnics but organize acts of violence against them. Note! That they may be only a minor part of  their group is of no importance; it is the threat of violence against people based on their origin. A fire alarm is the mass media content in the area or across the border.

c.  Ambitious high Russian officials. As long as there is peace in the area it remains a backwater. But if tensions increase so do the promotion opportunities  for higher officials.   Some “patriots” may be tempted to increase their influence.

the fire station

If tensions get out of hand immediate action is needed where the Balt states, Nato and Russia are informed. For this to be effective a crisis line must exist between the Kreml and Nato and a crisis center exist where both parties are represented.

Fire fighting

To start a fire is the work of a moment, but it takes time to extinguish one. I cannot prescribe how it should be done, but I can suggest how it could be done. Because preparation is necessary.

a. What kind of Nato troops?

It is important therefore that the troops don’t belong to the historical enemies or friends of Russia. A start at least should be made with soldiers from West of the Rhone.

b. What should they do?

Take over law enforcement duties from the local government, see that the laws of the land are followed, and maintain life in the turbulent areas till the situation calms down. Which means no Urbalts or Rbalts being harmed. They shall also prevent any “volunteers” as in Crimea and eastern Ukraine or any rightwing extremists like the “Azov brigade”from the Ukraine entering the area.

c. Human rights, a cause for conflict?.

Genocide, like in Rwanda, has often followed an official or tolerated  campaign in mass media which has whipped up hatred against the targeted group. On the other hand, freedom of speech is one of the tools a democratic society has developed to limit political power and its misuses.It is  important that Nato journalists have full freedom to investigate developments and write about them. But what if the government or organizations in the Baltic States misuse freedom of speech to spread ethnic hatred? Even this must be prepared against and not solved by some last minute improvisation. A court should be established where the crime would be massmedial preparation for genocide. The court should consist of lawyers and journalists and have its own investigative resources.

d. A tool from history

The following is an idea and not a proposal as above.There could be many other proposals. In Italy of the renaissance, when two powerful factions could not agree, and city life became paralyzed, a podesta was established. That is an authority constituted of people not related to either faction who were imported till the local parties realized that they could do things better themselves by working together. That is an emergency measure to cool things down until time has passed and at least a better solution than  quotas that has more or less paralyzed Bosnia.

e. Demagogues

Real differences of opinion can exist between Urbalts and Rbalts which can only be solved by mutual discussions. But some will want to use and deepen these differences for their own personal advantage.To counter this a court should be established against preparations for genocide and the convicted be exiled to west of Rhone or east of the Urals.

f. Sovereignity

It is obvious that the proposals above are  an interference with the sovereignity of the Baltic states in question. But does sovereignity give the right for a number of selfwilled men to set the whole of Europe on fire?



















Religion, the Supreme Court and Public Schools.

July 16, 2016

If we could bring the signers of the Constitution to the present day and show them the place of religion in public schools they would be flabbergasted.  None of the signers were openly against religion and very few if any were antireligious at all.  Where is it?

The Bill of Rights says two things. The government can’t make any law that forces the citizens to follow any form of worship. It also stops the government from hindering any form of worship. And that includes religious instruction. Usually we call this the right of the citizens to liberty of conscience.

How does this apply to tax supported schools (public education) and what is all the commotion about?

In the past if parents were well off they could hire people to supply religious instruction if they themselves were busy working etc. If not, most of the population were farmers working with their children which meant that during the day, by exemple and by word, they could let them know what was the right way for contact with the eternal. But gradually during the years parents and minors were separated during the day and religion had a smaller and smaller place in public education in contrast to the case in the world outside the school. The reason: people should be able to send their children to school without being told what to think about religion. That is the first part of the first amendment to the constitution. The result has been the mess that exists today, not because people are less religious but because trying to be fair.

But what of the second part liberty of conscience which means the parental responsibility towards their minors to get what they consider is the proper religious instruction.?

I therefore propose that every public school could have a Spiritual Center built close by. How would it be run and financed? A Spiritual Center is simply a building with class rooms for worship and religious instruction to be carried out by reverends, priests and rabbis etc during the schoolday for students in public schools. The instructors will be paid by parents and the religious organizations that want the students to have religious instruction during the school week. The adjustment to the school demands will not be greater than the adjustment for football and the like. If there are not enough who want to follow a particular form of worship it will be up to the parents to cooperate (presbyterians and methodists for ex)

Those who are opposed to worship will have their own presentation of religion.

An Spiritual Center doesn’t have to be there but if there are enough parents who want it they will have to pay for it. (the free exercise of religion again). One way is to do it by fundraising from the public, another by issuing bonds. Labor can also be contributed as part of or instead of money. None of these involves government efforts or tax money. Payment for instruction and upkeep will be collected from the parents. Then the question arises. Is there going to be a money bar for those who can’t afford or will the religious organizations make up the deficit. In other words is religious instruction (or instruction about religion) something only  for the rich or for all children. This is a fundamental question but one for the parents involved and not for the Supreme Court.

The constitution forbids the government to favor one religious expression over another which means using tax money for this purpose. But it also forbids the government from interfering with liberty of conscience. In other words religion in schools is not allowed but religion at schools is.

Bye, Bye U.S Democratic Elections

May 9, 2016


Can voting by electronic voting machines or any version which doesn’t involve a paper trail be democratic? First we have to understand what a paper trail is. It is a ballot (piece of paper) which counts for one vote and where nobody can see that just you have cast that vote.

Why couldn’t an electronic ballot be democratic? That is free, secret and correct?

I will tell you what convinced me, but it is up to you to decide if it makes sense.

You, as a voter have no control over the electronic voting machines or networks. As a matter of fact, only a minority of the democratically elected officials do and how much control do they have? The supplier of these systems is out to make money.

A. There is no way for you to know if a deal has been made and the results have been fixed.

B.What is just as bad, there is no large system which hasn’t been hacked. That is to say, where  the results have been changed either from mischief or for profit or for political reasons.

In either case there is no way for you as a voter to trace if the vote you cast is the vote that is counted. Paper leaves a trail, particularly in the system which is still in force in most places.

Electrons leave no trail. Just as you cannot be a bit pregnant, so you cannot have elections that are partly democratic.

In other countries you need riot police and armor to prevent a democratic election. In the US you just need a keyboard.

Fight the extremists, not the Talibans.

August 15, 2009


Let us imagine the following. Due to some serious terrorist actions, foreign troops are forced to invade the US. Which then would lead to the least  casualties among invaders as well as US civilians: Attacking the “moral majority” or attacking the extremists groups?


If the invaders  limit themselves to attacks on extremists or interfering , in addition, with the court system.


Bringing in foreign aid workers and businessmen of the same nationality as the major invading forces or limiting the presence of foreign civilians to the minimum as much as possible.


Please keep this scenario in mind while we discuss the following questions.


First – why is the West in Afghanistan at all?  What are Western war aims? Or to put it differently, in what way does Western presence in Afghanistan make sense?


Second-What is the situation in Afghanistan?


Third- What is the nature of the Western Presence in Afghanistan?


Fourth-What makes the Western Presence unnecessarily disruptive in Afghanistan, supporting the extremists and causing avoidable damage to civilians and to the Western forces.


Fifth – How should the Western Forces react to the different factors in Afghanistan?




A.     Why is the West in Afghanistan at all? What are the Western war aims? Or to put it differently: is there any way that the Western presence in Afghanistan makes sense?


The drug trade, denial of women’s rights, the establishment of the Muslim laws  called the sharia, oppression of citizens. All these occur, more or less, in countries without any Western military presence and often allied with the West.


How is Afghanistan different?


a.      It has a government which does not control its own territory or even its own bureacracy (the closest comparison is former South Vietnam)

b.      The risk of an extremist takeover (not a Taliban-they are already there) is great.

c.       In addition the government itself is in danger of being taken over by drug dealers and turning into a narco state.


The West is there to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a global danger by being a safe shelter for global terrorists. But the ones paying the price for global security are the Afghan people.


Therefore the only Western war aim that makes  any sense is to prevent the extremists from gaining control of Afghan territory.


B. What is the situation in Afghanistan?


Think of a series of dials. A big one for Afghanistan as a whole. Smaller ones for each province.  At the far left of each dial are the extremists (10%), next we have the very conservative and devout rural and small town population(40%),  then rightward we have the ones just trying to make a living and and getting along with the power that be, tolerating Western benefits  with (health care  and  women’s schools) and Western habits (rock, Western movies, Western dress) in various degrees the more you move rightward(30%). Then you have the Western modernizers who fully accept Western ideals (10%). Finally you have the drug dealers, war lords and gangsters at the far right (10%).Don’t get caught in the percentages – they are approximate and change as the needle moves. The needle is the current situation in Afghanistan based on what people think, how they act, and how the local leadership changes.


This means that it is not only  possible but necessary to negotiate with local Taliban leaders.  Depending on the position of the needle ,  the treaties will hold or not. However if they are broken  then it is back to the negotiating table again. Outrage will not solve anything but perseverance will give a breathing spell for ordinary Afghans to get on with their lives and  join to improve their society. It is this civil action that is the hope of Afghanistan.



        C.  What is the nature of the Western presence in Afghanistan?


The Western presence is that of foreign invaders with an alien culture whom the Afghan people did not ask  to intervene. The extremists are nearly all Afghans, bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh. That is the great advantage that they have.

On the other hand the extremists are fanatics who push the envelope till it pops.

The  great advantage of the Western forces is that the extremists run their territories so badly that even Western invaders are tolerated. Until the West in turn screws up so badly that the needle swings back again.  It  is important to note that the West is now engaged in a ground war in Asia, something which one Western general after another has warned against from General Eisenhower on down.


   D.      What makes the Western presence unnecessarily disruptive in           Afghanistan and and plays into the hands of the extremists?


i.                    Carpetbaggers.


These can be put under the following headings. Businessmen trying to exploit the weakness and corruption of the Afghan government to make money.

“Idealists?” claiming to help but in reality trying to impose their private agenda on the Afghans using the Western military presence and Afghan economic weakness.


What is the price in wayside bombs and bullets in the dark that justifies the presence of these?


I propose that nationals from the major contingents serving in Afghanistan (with the exception of journalists) be barred. Martyred Afghanistan is not to be a playground for economic and ideological hustlers. As for the citizens from smaller countries, their presence ought to be discouraged unless the Afghan government insists on their presence. Even their    help costs too much in paving the way for local extremists.


ii.                  Atrocities


On the face of it there is a military necessity for air attacks and artillery fire where civilians and their livelihod are at risk.  And there are no risks to the ones ordering it– charge it to the taxpayer. The risks are borne by the men in the field who are the targets of those avenging their martyred dead.


I propose the following, either separately or in combination for a trial period of six months:


a.  Air attacks and artillery fire as usual but a reduction of one pay grade for the officer ordering it.


b.  An board of inquiry for every such event, evaluating the necessity, the effect and eventual errors.


As it is now, bombing the wrong village or for inadequate reasons is written off as a mishap and these mishaps keep happening because there is no interest in correcting them.


                     If after 6 months (or earlier if there is a sharp casualty rise due to these restrictions)  there  is no increase in military casualties traced to these restrictions then they should remain.


       E.   How to minimize Western distruption of life in Afghanistan?


                a. Compensation for loss of life and property   



Any loss of life or property (read livelihood and shelter) due to Western military action should be compensated in a way that puts the money into the hands of the sufferers and not parcelled out through a corrupt bureaucracy.

That extremists use the civilian population as shields is totally irrelevant. They are Afghans, the Westerners are invaders and the extremists would not use the civilians as shields if the Westerners weren’t attacking them. (OK this means that the extremists are literally getting away with murder, but that is not the point.)The point is the reaction of the victims and their neighbors (see section B )


  b.  Establish an agricultural support program.


            It is important that this does not interfere with normal market procedures. That   is a matter for the Afghans. The program should be confined to compensating for floods and storms on the one hand and providing affordable (not genetic modified)  seeds for the nexts season’s planting, on the other. Unfamiliar crops for which there is a local demand could also be financed this way.  It is important that this should not go through the Afghan bureaucracy.  A benchmark should be set up for when the program should be phased out, otherwise it will always be “needed”.


c.  A pension plan for seniors who survived the Sovjet invasion


                    For many years the Afghans fought the Soviets. Their resistance was one of the major reasons for the fall of the Sovjet empire. Most of the survivors have died of privations or from the subsequent unrest.


   I suggest: That the West pays a modest monthly pension to Afghan senior citizens in those districts that have a functioning girl’s school and women’s medical clinic. That the payment gets into the hands of the poverty stricken population and not sticking to somebody’s palm. 


To sum up: Resist the extremists, negotiate with the local Talibans time and time again, limit  the carpetbaggers, cooperate with the government at arm’s length, and prepare a sensible exit strategy for Afghanistan.      




Time to leave the merrygoround of violence in the middle east

February 1, 2009

a. Let the democratic majorities decide

Today it takes just a few persons to block any peace efforts in the IP (Israel Palestine area) regardless of the will of any democratically elected government or even any government with popular support. Only some Kalashnikovs or semtex   or rockets are needed.

The area is victimized by a culture of violence. Automatic reprisals from either side only fortifies this situation. Deciding who is to blame is like quenching a fire with gasoline.

Is it possible to put the brakes on this development? With a more realistic perception of the conflict and the real issues at stake, supported by an attainable change in mindset, this can be done.

What realistic perception? That all actions that the IPs engage in are distorted by 60 years of conflict. As little as 5 years of a continual armistice will give a completely new perspective on the issues. The problem is to anticipate this new perspective.

What are the real issues? For the Palestinians whether it is more important to develop their own state which cares for its citizens or to kill Jews. For the Israelis whether a Palestinian State is a threat or an opportunity.

What is the necessary mindset? It is that attacks are felt by the IPs as a threat to their basic and separate national goals. The minimum to translate this attitude into policy is an  armistice agreement.

Is it possible to imagine such an agreement? I present here one of many possible versions to show that is possible to think realistically along these lines. I want to stress that it is not the content in itself that is important but the thinking behind it. All too many supporters on either side are caught on the merry go round. It is time to get off and look around.

b. A sketch for an armistice plan in the IP area

Step 1. The Gaza Strip is turned over to Israel and its residents are offered housing and startup capital in Palestine.

Comment: The thought here as in the following step is that an area has not the identical value for Israel and Palestine.

For Palestine the Gaza Strip is a disaster, surrounded and separated by Israel, where Palestinian citizens live in squalor and without hope. For Israel, the gain would be a unified territory up to the Egyptian border and one border less to police.

Step 2: One or more Israeli areas with mainly Palestinian population are incorporated in the Palestinian state.

Comment: It is obvious that Palestine will not turn over the Gaza Strip without gaining something as valuable to them. The areas in question are however more valuable to Israel sq meter for sq meter than for the  Palestine. No Israeli government would turn over land on a 1 to 1 basis and on the other hand no Palestinian government would agree to exchange 10 of the strip to 1 of Israeli territory no matter how many of Palestinian origin live there. Here lies the central basis for negotiation.

But these two steps are only the foundation for armistice negotiations.

Step 3. The settlers are offered resettlement funds and compensation. The armistice is in force first when almost all the settlers have left Palestinian territory and almost all Palestinians have left the Gaza Strip.

Comment: The whole armiostice plan builds on the thought that the IPs have a furture where the main obstacle is the present culture of violence. The Palestinians, quite reasonably, refuse to be treated as “natives” with the end result a reservation (like the Gaza Strip as a matter of fact). The Intifada and the suicide bombings are a desperate substitute for the jets the Palestinians lack. But the armistice plan offers the Palestinians increased security and an increased number of their citizens in a Palestinian homeland. It offers the Israelis increased security and clearer borders. For the settlers an honorable retreat (after all the Strip has to be settled) to the advantage of Israel.

Step 4.  The world community foots most of the bill.

Comment: It is obvious that IP cannot pay for everything out of their own resources. The outside world will have foot a large part of the bill. The world community must weigh the costs for their part of compensation to settlers and Gaza residents against the political and economic costs of the present conflict. Above  all the political costs of fortifying terrorism as a way of life on both sides of the border.

Step 5. The world community must receive a return on their investment.

Comment: Nobody can guarantee a future free from violence. However a violent future is guaranteed as long as torture is not forbidden by IP constitutions or corresponding instruments and as long as the foundations for ethnic cleansing are laid in the schoolbooks. It would simply mean that the world community would be financing continued and increasing violence and violations of human dignity and rights.

Therefore, as a minimum: Torture is forbidden in the constitutional instruments in IP with full transparency for the world community in the implementation of this. b. Until a peace treaty is signed (an utopian step at present) all school books up through gymnasium or high school must be approved by a suitable UN organ.

c. The bitter reality

Violence within IP can decline if there is a reason to rethink the situation but it will take a long time before it disappears completely. Today suicide bombers and state terrorists are heroes because they can brainwash not only themselves but their countrymen into thinking that their actions are necessary for the survival of their people. With an armistice agreement, negotiated by the IP, where both parties trade something worthwhile for something even more essential, the men of violence become a threat to the national goals and existence of the IPs. That means that terrorists are changed from popular heroes into outcasts. This is as obvious to them as to everybody else. Therefore an immediate increase of violence during negotiations and immediately afterwards in order to sabotage any armistice agreement. The members of the larger organized groups, however, have an incentive to gain power by spending their efforts in shaping the future of IP by peaceful means. The smaller groups can only continue with the only thing they know – the murder of innocents. Can the IP citizens put love of country and a will to build their own future ahead of their anger? Or will they let a few extremists among both nations determine their future?This and a perceptive and determined leadership from their politicians is necessary to marginalize these few and leave the merrygoround for good.