mandag den 25. juli 2011

Reflections on the Oslo right-radical terrorist

Whereas 'yesterday' was a time for silent mourning today is a time for intense reflection and sober analysis!

By Claus Piculell, Monday 25th July 2011

After dealing with the immediate shock caused by the heinous act by Oslo terrorist Anders Breivik and showing personal deep sadness and solidarity with all democrats in Norway, I think time has come to reflect a little on the consequences of his terror, his alleged reasons and what to do in the near future to give an appropriate democratic answer.

However, it is not a time for 'pointing fingers' at political actors with thinking and rhetoric that seems similar to that of the terrorist. Nor do we need panic politics or ever more controls but to consider what can be done in real life to counteract radicalization and to encourage democratic dialogue and critical thinking so that no overwrought ideologue can think terrorism is ever on the right side of history.

Of course it is tempting for the European Left to consider this as payback time against the Right for their often shallow and vindictive persecutions of many decent and humanistic lefties for their youthful naïve transgressions on the back of their dream of creating some sort of Paradise on Earth - persecutions that have often prevented fruitful self-reflection rather than promoting it.

But why should the European Left stoop to such a level and turn into the very vindictiveness that it has striven to stop? And why try to pose as angels without flaws and faults in our baggage when no-one with any brain activity, least of all ourselves, believe it to be true?

What we need is an open debate environment where people, even in the highest places, are not afraid to admit to their mistakes and learn from them. Consequently, everybody with a stake in politics needs to reflect carefully on how to react to this tragedy, and of course some need to reflect more than others about this particular incident.

Thus, it is for each active citizen to themselves reflect on what he or she can do to prevent further instances of terrorism and to strengthen the democracy that the terrorist wants to overthrow, and we must all enter into a dialogue - a much belated dialogue - on what we can do together.

The radical Right has been growing in Europe over the past decade or more and some right-wingers have talked about a more or less unstoppable "clash of civilisations" and that Europe is being flooded with Muslims.

It is self-evident that such rhetoric is similar to that of Breivik in his video and manifesto. But does that mean that all people with a Cultural Christian and Conservative stance are in any way co-responsible for Breivik's acts of terrorism? Of course not!

History is filled with examples of how even the most peaceful belief or ideology has been taken by some extreme zealot as a reason for violence, including all major ideologies and religions.

However, what has often happened after an shocking instance of heinous violence is that it has later lead serious peace-loving clerics and ideologues to contemplate how to make their case better without giving overzealous supporters a legitimacy that was not intended ...

Danish poet laureate Piet Hein coined the phrase "the noble art of losing face". Nobody has the right to demand of others that they admit culpability for something they did not do. But any decent human being has an obligation to reflect upon how he or she can help the world escape another horror. For history is also full of high-minded public figures that have admitted or accepted to have been wrong.

Churchill praised Mussolini's well-organized society only to be a major instrument in the destruction of Fascism and Nazism. He also mistrusted the motives of Niels Bohr intensely when Bohr approached him to warn against the calamitous effect of nuclear weapons (and suggested Bohr be put under house arrest) only to react with horror at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And never has there been a more anti-communist Prime Minister of Britain than Churchill but he was the first state leader to propose an alliance with the Soviet Union against Hitler.

One would also do well in remembering that Breivik vehemently denies being a nazi supporter and that he even identifies Nazism as one of three hate ideologies (the others are Marxism and Islamism) that he claims to be fighting but that he at the same time turns out to have been a member of a Nazi debate forum since 2009 and that he apparently does not see Fascism as a hate ideology ...

And how did Breivik get to bomb central Oslo and gunning down innocent Socialist youngsters? By posing as a policeman! So much for fighting with honour! Breivik hints at his reason for doing this when he claims that Islamists feel it justified to tell any lie to infidels to further the cause of Islam. But while Breivik claims to be fighting Islam in an honourable way he doesn't exactly practice what he preaches. On the contrary, he seems to have reached the conclusion that lies and deception are necessary for his struggle too for the end justifies any means ...

I have been watching the video by Anders Breivik and managed to remain calm enough to make these observations: a) much of the video could have been made by any cultural conservative but b) Breivik claims to belong to a group that revived the Order of Knights Templar in UK in 2002, c) he calls for a Conservative and Christian revolution to "cleanse Europe", d) his alleged reason for his attack on the Young Socialists was to his "duty to decimate the Cultural Marxists".

I find it important to know the enemy of all democratic-minded people's enemy i.a. by understanding their thinking, and Brevik's manifesto - albeit to a large degree copy-pasted from the Unabomber's manifesto of 1995 - shows that he sees himself as more of a European Christian-Conservative Crusader than a traditional nationalist and that he wants to start a Conservative Revolution to cleanse Europe of Islam and the "alliance of Cultural Marxists, Suicidal Humanists and Global Capitalists".

Is Breivik basically mad?

Is he a stupid monster that nobody should take seriously?

Did he very deliberately choose to shoot very young people to provoke 'counter attacks' and / or more laws to encroach on our democratic civil liberties?
Hell yes - he writes a much in his Manifesto when he recommends attacks on women and children!

Should we give him the satisfaction of reacting as he has planned?
I think you can guess my answer to that one ...

"For Youth" by Nordahl Grieg ...

Some may have come across the broadcast of the Memorial Service of Sorrow and Hope from Oslo Cathedral earlier today and listened to the Congregation singing a beautiful tune by Norwegan Poet and anti-Fascist Nordahl Grieg: "For Youth". Here it is in Rod Sinclair's translation in a simple version from Youtube followed by the Rod's English text.

Lovely girl with a lone guitar and a lovely voice performing one of the most beautiful peace songs ever written

FOR YOUTH - English version of the tune sung at Oslo Cathedral today

Faced by your enemies
On every hand
Battle is menacing,
Now make your stand
Fearful your question,
Defenceless, open
What shall I fight with?
What is my weapon?

Here is your battle plan,
Here is your shield
Faith in this life of ours,
The common weal
For all our children’s sake,
Save it, defend it,
Pay any price you must,
They shall not end it

Neat stacks of cannon shells,
Row upon row
Death to the life you love,
All that you know
War is contempt for life,
Peace is creation
Death’s march is halted
By determination

We all deserve the world,
Harvest and seed
Hunger and poverty
Are born of greed
Don’t turn your face away
From needs of others
Reach out a helping hand
To all your brothers

Here is our solemn vow,
From land to land
We will protect our world
From tyrants’ hand
Defend the beautiful,
Gentle and innocent
Like any mother would
Care for her infant.

And here is the same girl with an even prettier simple version of the original Norwegian poem by Nordahl Grieg to music by Danish Composer Otto Mortensen followed by the text of the one of the best peace poems ever written.

"Til Ungdommen"

Ung pige med en guitar og en helt utroligt smuk sang!

Kringsatt av Fiender,
gå inn i din tid!
Under en blodig storm -
vi deg til strid!
Kanskje du spør i angst,
udekket, åpen:
hva skal jeg kjempe med
hva er mitt våpen?

er er ditt vern mot vold,
her er ditt sverd:
troen på livet vårt,
menneskets verd.
For all vår fremtids skyld,
søk det og dyrk det,
dø om du må - men:
øk det og styrk det!

Stilt går granatenes
glidende bånd
Stans deres drift mot død
stans dem med ånd!
Krig er forakt for liv.
Fred er å skape.
Kast dine krefter inn:
døden skal tape!

Edelt er mennesket,
jorden er rik!
Finnes her nød og sult
skyldes det svik.
Knus det! I livets navn
skal urett falle.
Solskinn og brød og ånd
eies av alle.

Dette er løftet vårt
fra bror til bror:
vi vil bli gode mot
menskenes jord.
Vi vil ta vare på
skjønnheten, varmen
som om vi bar et barn
varsomt på armen!

torsdag den 7. juli 2011

Hvornår bliver de radikale socialliberale igen?

svar på tiltale til Zenia Stampe i hendes blog på
Vil koret fra rød stue stoppe afsyngning af Internationale?

Zenia Stampe, der er en meget ambitiøs radikal næstforkvinde, har på sin blog begået endnu et radikalt indlæg, der bebrejder S+SF, at de tager nogle af de samme problemer op som DF - frem for som de Radikale strudse at bekæmpe partiet og i øvrigt stikke hovedet i jorden for at fiske stemmer og undgå at se, tale om og prøve at løse de reelle problemer i Danmark anno 2011.

Kære Zenia Stampe

Ja, den moderne socialisme har en helt central international(istisk) dimension, og den er f.eks. afspejlet i den nye Liberalsocialismes 1. hovedmål for det 21. århundrede:

A) LS ønsker som første hovedmål at opnå at komme så tæt på at udrydde ulighed og fjendskab i verden, at alle klodens borgere frit kan rejse, elske, bosætte sig og arbejde, præcis hvor man vil, og så man kan fjerne alle atomare, biologiske og kemiske våben.

Men der er nogle ting, I radikale må lære at forstå - hvis I da ellers vil:

1. Det er et meget stort mål, og der er endda to til, og det stiller kæmpe krav til holdningsændringer ( droppe nullernes forbrugerisme, som jeres topskattelettelser med VOK har været med til at fremme), omfordeling, intelligent grøn vækst, oma.

2. Socialisme og al politik har også en national side, og når DF kan få 15% af stemmerne ved fremmedhad er det, fordi de har fat i et reelt problem, men en forkert løsning. S+F er følgagtige, men det er helt legitimt at at debattere, hvor mange udenlandske slægtninge landet nu kan klare at tage hvert år.

3. Grænsen for "stuerenhed" i debatten om de 'sorte' danskere og globalisering og kulturproblemer m.m. skal gå ved demokrati og xenofobi, ikke som i jeres retorik ved, at man aldrig må være enige med DF, som har mange vælgere fra lavere lag, hvilket S+F jo netop også har.

4. Jeres radikale vælgere har høj uddannelse, vellønnede jobs og er i toppen af samfundet, og det er ærlig talt ækelt, som I fører ren klassepolitik ved at profilere jer selv på at være anti-DF, for de får så også flere stemmer takket været jeres debatindsats, og på den anden side at tale topskattelettelser og i det hele taget i jeres økonomiske og arbejdsmarkedspolitik m.m. at konkurrere med det ultraliberalistiske Liberal Alliance om at fiske de riges stemmer på et tidspunkt, hvor der er givet for 100 mia. pr. år, hvor velfærden dårligt kan finansieres, og hvor vi hernede i Underdanmark oplever et samfund, der vil tryne og sulte os og lade vold imellem os foregå uhindret.

5. Underdanmark forstået som både sorte og hvide danskere på bunden og med sygdomme osv. kan ikke klare fire år mere med VOK, uden at der udbryder stadig mere spontan oprørsvold, som er ulykkeligt for alle parter, og at I rige radikale ser stort på det siger en hel del om, at I ikke længere er socialliberale - Anna Mee Allerslev i København som eneste fine undtagelse!

6. Dit indlæg er intelligent skrevet, men endnu en gang plat stemmefiskeri på et tidspunkt, hvor dette lands økonomiske og sociale problemer er ved at vokse os alle over hovedet.

vh Claus Piculell, ægte moderne socialliberal, dvs. liberalsocialist!