Assumed socialism

red rose
Norwegian Labour has a red rose for a symbol, but in reality it isn’t red at all.

Having lived my whole life in socialist Norway I suppose I should be a big supporter of the ideology, and in a way I am. I don’t think there are any democratic parties that come closer to creating a fair society. Unfortunately, Labour hasn’t made any sense in decades.

It seems like Labour has gone through a similar development in Norway and Britain, which means that they haven’t offered an alternative to the Conservatives. Labour in both countries have had a period where the political colour was purple at best, but they are seemingly shifting towards red again. I remain skeptical for many reasons, and it’s not just about the war crimes they are guilty of, or the poor people they have failed. It’s also about mixed messages. The problem with most truly left wing politicians is that they tend to support anything anti-American, even when these regimes are harmful to its own citizens.

Britain just had an election where some seem to think that Jeremy Corbyn was very successful. This is election year in Norway too, and at the moment Labour is expected to return to power after four years of a Conservative coalition. Just like Jeremy Corbyn the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party has promised old-fashioned socialism, or rather a return to socialism. I’m not sure what Labour in any country really want, but they tend to be just as two faced as the rest of the bunch.

I understand solidarity, but why do we have to show solidarity to regimes just because they are supposedly socialist or anti-American? I find it especially disturbing when someone like Jeremy Corbyn is getting closer to real power. He supported the IRA during the 1980’s and 90’s. He once called Hamas and Hezbollah friends. but was later forced to retract that support. He has admitted to being paid for appearances on Press TV, an Iranian station that is banned in the UK. He has expressed admiration for the way Hugo Chavez ran Venezuela, or the way Castro brothers have governed Cuba. Labour’s approach to Palestine could be compared to the one many socialists have to Latin-America. That means supporting people that are pro-Palestine, even if that means supporting Jewish prejudices. There is a big difference between being anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. Labour may pretend to be better than the Conservatives, but this makes me wonder how true that is.

I have mentioned Jeremy Corbyn, but I could just as well have made this post about Jonas Gahr Støre, who took over from Jens Stoltenberg when he became General Secretary of NATO. The election in September will be Støre’s first as the leader of Labour. He has basically pulled a Trump because his message is that Labour will make Norway believe in what we used to be good at. In other words, he wants to make Norway great again, and the goal seems to be to convince us that life has never been harder. We need Labour to get back on our feet again. According to the polls it seems to be working. This is how you win elections. You convince enough people that something is at stake, and that the consequences of making the wrong choice will be dire.

I have often wondered how people can change their minds every time someone from a polling agency asks them what they are going to vote, but I guess the “vote for us or else-tactics” explains s lot. I would be willing to go along with it if socialism was about equal opportunities, but it clearly isn’t. When socialists support, or at the very least, don’t criticize despots, doesn’t that tell us something about how sincere they really are? They may still be better than a government that doesn’t pretend to help the majority, but I don’t like liars.

The Economic Bomb

Old couple sitting on two swings. Many could have a long, pleasant retirement, but a few could also struggle financially. Photo: Pixabay
Many could have a long, pleasant retirement, but a few could also struggle financially. Photo: Pixabay

I have a fascination for conspiracy theories. Some of them are very far out there, but once in a while I hear about one that sounds plausible. After all, governments have done some awful things in the recent past, so there are a lot of scenarios I could believe in.

I have never considered the possibility of a massive depopulation because most conspiracy theories that deal with this are much too wild, but I do believe that governments think a great deal about the need for balancing the population. A recent report from World Economic Forum suggested that many governments will have an enormous debt to the ageing population. The problem isn’t just that the population is growing, but that we have longer life spans. The report quotes University of California, Berkeley, which states that 50 percent of the children born in 2007 will live to be more than a 100 years old in countries like the USA, Britain, Japan, Italy, Germany, France and Canada. This amounts to a lot of people, and many years of pensions.

Norwegian authorities tried to prepare for the troubles ahead with a pension reform in 2011. Retirement age used to be 67, and many were forced to retire at that age. The new thing is that if you want the maximum pension, you have to postpone your retirement. The tax for pensioners has also been increased from 11 to 17 percent, which is intended to counteract the problems with the growing retirement savings gap.

Employed people finance the pensions, and as long as there are enough young people working there will be money for the pensions. What happens when this balance is shifted? There is already a retirement savings gap of $ 70 trillion worldwide, and it is expected to grow by 5 percent a year to $ 400 trillion in 2050. To put that into perspective, the world economy today amounts to $ 74 trillion. You can imagine what a challenge this will be in populous countries like the USA, China, India and Japan. The situation is especially grave in Japan because they have a low birth rate, like most rich countries, but they hardly have immigration at all. That means they lose a quarter of a million people a year.

We do have immigration in Norway, but statistics show that refugees are less educated than Norwegians and immigrants from Europe and North America, and the employment rate among Africans and Asians is also significantly lower. This would have to change if we are to successfully deal with the situation.

World Economic Forum offers a sort of advice, but I don’t know how good it is. They referred to surveys showing that people under 50 years didn’t worry much about retirement, but if you start planning ahead as soon as you start working, you’ll be more likely to manage when you don’t work anymore. They also recommend investments with higher risks and higher profit, but I am not sure this will be an option to low income families. I have heard about people who say they are not worried. They rely on the good services our welfare state has provided thus far, but there are no guarantees for the future.

I don’t believe in the most spectacular theories concerning depopulation, but I think many governments would like to see a lower life expectancy. That may happen automatically because being poor usually means that you don’t eat healthy and that you don’t have access to the best health care. There’s been some great dystopic literature and films published in recent years, but there are some pretty scary possibilities in the real world too.

We’ll live to 100 – How can we afford it?

I fancy England

This typical English cottage is like taken out of a classic novel. Photo: Pixabay
This English cottage is like taken out of a classic novel. Photo: Pixabay

My uncle, aunt and their two children were living in London for a while in the early 1980’s, as I entered my teen years. I visited them for a couple of weeks once, and vaguely remember Madame Tussaud and a place that had lots of tennis courts next to each other. I don’t know where in London that was, but I have always imagined that it was connected to the place where the famous Wimbledon tournament is played. This is unfortunately my only visit to the British Isles. Nevertheless, I’m a major anglophile. I have always wanted to go there, but so far it’s been financially impossible.

These islands have produced some of the greatest literary treasures in Europe. I still enjoy childhood favourites like The Borrowers, The Jungle Book, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Alice in Wonderland, and Oliver Twist. I later discovered Jane Austen, E.M. Forster, H. G. Wells, Agatha Christie, Arthur Conan Doyle, and lots more. British TV have made some of my favourite entertainment. I have fond memories of Jeremy Brett and Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes, Joan Hickson and Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple, and David Suchet as Hercule Poirot. I later enjoyed shows like Foyle’s War, Primeval, Doctor Who, and Sherlock just to mention a few. I enjoy some of these low cost productions far better than films made by major film studios.

America has always had a special ring to Norwegians, which isn’t surprising as a big part of our population emigrated there in the past. I have felt like that about Britain and British culture, which makes just as much sense historically. Modern DNA-tests have revealed that Norwegian vikings didn’t just raid and retreat, but settled in Britain, particularly in Cumbria, Shetland, the Orkneys, and far north on the Scottish mainland. I have mixed emotions about the political situation in Britain at the moment. The EU position seems to be anger, something like this: How dare you want independence? How dare you leave us?

Independence could be very good for Britain in the long run, but I don’t see why they can’t be British and European at the same time. Other EU-governments seem to suggest that any country that leaves the union must be treated as an enemy. Why do you have to be a member of the EU to have a place in Europe? Suddenly the EU doesn’t seem that friendly. I don’t know what will happen, but it would be nice if Norway and Britain strengthened the ties that seems like nothing more than a distant memory today.

I have dreamt about travelling across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland + Ireland. An extended stay in Britain is also on my bucket list. I haven’t been able to afford trips out of the country for almost two decades, and it doesn’t look like it will happen anytime soon, but I hope to get a chance later. I am fascinated by America too, especially New England, but most of the time it’s the original England I think about. It may be just a fantasy. The England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland + Ireland I think about only exists in books and films, but I still want to see the people and the country that produced these wonderful stories.

I may very well do the same as Americans who believe that a welfare state is the same as communism or that it snows most of the time here. Just for the record, I know people in the English countryside don’t wipe out the whole village because of some century old land dispute or flower competition (Midsomer Murders), and I am sure Scotland Yard can manage very well without Poirot and Holmes. Reading British literature makes me hungry because there is a lot of food there, but if I went to England and asked people on the street, I would probably find that most of them didn’t eat Lancashire hotpot, steak and kidney pudding, and that the Scots didn’t eat much haggis. It’s the same in Norway. Even Norwegians don’t think there is any good Norwegian food because we hardly ever eat it.

Jeremy hangs on

The Palace of Westminster is probably the most iconic building in Europe. Personally I hope they succeed outside the EU. Photo: Diliff via Wikimedia Commons
The Palace of Westminster is probably the most iconic building in Europe. Personally I hope they succeed outside the EU. Photo: Diliff via Wikimedia Commons

I freely admit that I don’t understand politics, but after the many unpredictable results in recent elections internationally I don’t know if anyone does. In the days following the British election I have mostly seen headlines saying that Labour won, but did they really?

Labour have some reason to celebrate because they gained 30 seats compared to the last election, and the Conservatives lost 13. That gave them respectively 262 and 318 seats out of 650. None of them have majority and consequently none can govern without support from another party, but Labour is farther from achieving that than the Tories. So I ask myself, if Theresa May had resgined, as the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn demanded, what would happen?

Jeremy Corbyn argued that if Theresa May left office “the country would get a government that would be truly representative of the people of this country”. I come from a country where it’s hard to get a majority government, and the solution Theresa May is going for is what we have had in Norway the last four years. She aims to govern with the support of ten seats from the Democratic Unionist Party, but as I understand it the party from Northern Ireland won’t be a part of the government. They are just going to vote together in parliament without having a coalition.

This reminds me of the situation in 2010. David Cameron and Gordon Brown did worse than Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, but the Conservatives  and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition in the interest of stablity. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn won only four more seat than Gordon Brown seven years ago, and Theresa May won 12 more seats than David Cameron, so I don’t see how Corbyn can claim to represent a much vaster segment of the population than Theresa May.

Jeremy Corbyn has had a rather turbulent time as the leader of Labour. His leadership has been questioned by segments of his own party. There are many in his own party that feel he has taken the party too much to the left. In other words, the party has become Labour again. Many of his critics feel that he is unelectable, and maybe they are correct. After all, this election has been hailed as a huge success for Labour, but after a very good campaign against a candidate that didn’t really campaign at all, he was only four seats up from Gordon Brown’s result seven years ago. A leftwing politician may very well be unelectable. I wonder what he would do with his critics if he moved into Downing Street. Would there be a constant struggle with unpredictable votes in parliament?

I think the only alternative to the Conservatives would be a new election and I am not sure that Jerermy Corbyn, with actual socialist politics, would be more electable in the second round. No matter what happens this time, Corbyn probably had enough success to get another attempt at number 10.

I don’t know if the Labour Party in Norway is representative, but the experiences we have in Norway make me skeptical. They claim to be on the side of poor people, but in reality they make it just as hard to be poor as the Conservatives. I don’t need another blue party.

Donald says

Illustration. Man with a breifcase running. Donald Trump is portrayed as a deserter, but we may have been deserted many presidents ago.
Donald Trump is portrayed as a deserter, but we may have been deserted many presidents ago.

When I worked as a teacher I sometimes used games like Simon Says both as a reward and a tool to encourage the pupils to speak English, which was quite effective on children that didn’t say much during an English class. Different types of follow the leader or tags were popular outdoor activities. This seems like a relevant comparison these days because when I listen to media’s outcry about Donald Trump, I get the impression that we are doomed, forced to wander around without a wise leader to guide us. The truth is that previous leaders may not have been much more benevolent than what we have today.

I have referred to news as a narration in the past, and unfortunately there aren’t many journalists in my country that prove me wrong. A new narration developed a couple of days ago when Donald Trump hinted that he would withdraw the USA from the Paris climate agreement. The message is that Trump is a deserter and that the USA  is no longer a leader. The largest newspaper in Norway claimed that Trump “has abdicated the USA from international leadership, now in the fight against climate change as well” Just how leading have they been?

The Bush administration ignored the Kyoto agreement, while Obama commited the USA to a 17 percent reduction of the 2005 emissions by 2020. Obama has the reputation for being the first US president to take the threat of climate change seriously, but it’s not as obvious to some people that he provided the leadership the world needed.

Emissions went down under Obama, which was partly because methane gas emissions were reduced. There is evidence that instead of a 10 percent reduction between 2002 and 2014, there was a 30 percent increase. There is also the investments supported by the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which is the official export credit agency of the United States Federal Government. It has supported polluting overseas projects that have sabotaged Obama’s green politics at home. I can understand why Trump makes people worried if everything that happened before November 2016 was leadership.

This reminds me of the leadership we had under Jens Stoltenberg. The present Secretary General of NATO was the Norwegian Prime Minister from 2005 to 2013, and his tale was one of the tallest in politics. He talked about Norway being a world leader in climate politics, and the biggest project was carbon capture. Stoltenberg called it our Moon landing because this grand idea was to be just as important to the world as NASA’s mission in 1969. The last thing Stoltenberg did before leaving office was to shut down this project because the technology was too expensive to use.

This is one of the problems with green politics. There are no governments that look for alternatives. They want to continue using fossil fuels, while reducing  emissons, which is not profitable yet. It was Stoltenbergs dream to build natural gas and coal power plants without polluting  because the CO2 would be stored in underground tombs. It failed miserably.

The Norwegian parliament has committed Norway to reducing the Norwegian emission from 1990 with 30 percent by 2020. We can have a little higher emissions because of the amount of trees, but it is estimated that the emissions will have to be 45-47 million ton in 2020. The actual level has gone down from 54,6 tons in 2000 to 53,4 tons in 2016, which is an improvement of course, but we are far from meeting our obligations. This leaves me with a question:

We have not withdrawn from any UN climate agreements. What consequences does it have for countries that either wihdraw or don’t try hard enough to respect the agreement? None! So what have we done? Maybe we have simply followed the leader?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support Donald Trump’s bizarre view of the world, but I wonder if it’s that much worse than the so-called leadership we have benefitted from thus far. The states, cities and factory owners in the USA don’t have to wait for federal leadership, and they don’t. They didn’t when Bush was president, or when Obama was president, so why start now? They can provide leadership themselves because it is in the country’s best interest. Everybody knows that politicians don’t save the world. We do, or don’t.

How Obama’s climate change legacy is weakened by US investment in dirty fuel

A large increase in US methane emissons over the past decade inferred from satellite data and surface observations

The Obama oil boom

Massachussetts v. Environmental Protection Agency

Volatile minds

I am fascinated by shapes and symmetry in nature, which is sort of what this post is about. I believe there is a creator or a programmer behind everything.

I have written several posts about British celebrity atheists the last couple of years, and they are frequently represented by Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins. They may very well be what they claim to be, but I get the impression that far too many atheists sail with a flag of convenience. If you don’t want any questions or don’t wan’t to defend what you believe, proclaiming to be an atheist is an easy solution. No one is going to ask how you came to that conclusion.

I mentioned Stephen Fry in the other posts, especially an interview he did with an Irish TV channel. Many atheists praised his remarkably inconsiderate bluster, but although these couple of minutes told me quite a lot about Stephen Fry (I knew he was an atheist, but before this I mostly knew him as an actor), they left me with more questions than answers. This story re-surfaced this week because a man had reported Fry to the police for what he saw as blasphemous comments in this interview. The police were forced to investigate, but only got around to it now, two years later. They dropped the case of course because having an opinion, no matter how thoughtless it is, shouldn’t be illegal.

Watch Stephen Fry’s answer on You Tube.

I don’t like the tendency there is these days to attack people you disagree with. I think both Stephen Fry and whoever reported him to the police did so in this case. Media reports constantly about cases where there is a false accusation of rape or molestation. There are cases involving the Child Welfare Service where they accuse a parent, usually ther mother, of being mentally ill. This happens without a psychologist/psychiatrist or even a GP talking to the parent. There are many master suppression techniques used to stop people or simply to get revenge. I also take an interest foreign politics and international relations, and as soon as you voice an opinion some people are quick to label you a conspiracy theorist. In other words, no matter how dogmatically Stephen Fry speaks, he shouldn’t be silenced.

As for the content of his speech…. Well, that is confusing and predictable at the same time. I am sorry to say I am not the great mind and thinker I’d like to be. I tried reading a translation of Thomas Aquinas once and I’ve never been so utterly disheartened. I couldn’t understand any of it, although I was reading my own language. I can only use my limited understanding of the universe, but I believe that is enough for me.

Tbe problem most people have, and this is a very general principle you can apply to everything from religion to science to racism, is that they don’t accept conclusions that contradict what they already believe. Even scientists tend to look for evidence that supports their hypothesis, but they find it harder to accept findings that will force them to lose some of their most fundamental convictions.

Stephen Fry seems to have reached a deeper understanding of the big questions. Christians have always struggled with explaining God and the presence of evil, and there’s been many suggestions the last 2000 years. I don’t personally know that God controls everything that goes on in the universe, or that he is responsible for all the injustice and pain in the world. I don’t know that God demands us to get down on our knees to thank him either. I am mostly hopeful. To be honest, I am trying to make the best out of this life, but it would be nice with a second round without all the bs from this world.

Are you looking for proof? Aren’t we all, but what is proof? Experience is an obsolete term for the word proof, and in that sense the proof of God’s existence makes sense to me. You are not going to find anything if you expect mathematics that leaves no doubt whatsoever. The way I experience or observe and encounter the universe, and read about how scientists have encountered it, I find it very likely that the universe and our unique world was created. I don’t think it just happened.

I personally don’t think it would be a bad idea with a more Christian lifestyle. and by that I don’t mean the corrupt version that governments and political leaders have imposed on the population for a couple of thousand years. Proof is experience and what most Christians preach is nonsense to me because it’s not my experience.

The Hitler Trick

The result of three car bombs in Aleppo that the Al Qaida-connected al-Nusra Front took responsibility for Photo: Zyzzzzzy via Wikimedia Commons
The result of three car bombs in Aleppo that the Al Qaida-connected al-Nusra Front took responsibility for
Photo: Zyzzzzzy via Wikimedia Commons

I recently read an interesting comment by the Danish sociologist Lars Jørgensen in the Danish newspaper Arbejderen (the worker). It was about media’s responsibility for the war in Syria, and I agree that they have caused many of the problems. It has to do with Hitler’s trick, as Jørgensen called it. Hitler knew, according to the comment in Arbejderen, that ordinary people couldn’t make themselves believe that their own leaders would shamelessly lie to them to justify war. That makes people inclined to contribute to their own oppression.

The argument is convincing at the same time as it’s hard to understand why people would do this. There were undoubtedly people in the 1930’s and 40’s that didn’t want to see the truth, and there are people today that don’t want to see their political heroes as liars. At the same time we have a resonsibility to reflect on what governmets and journalists tell us. We can accept everything we read and hear as truth, but having that level of naivity is a choice we make. I have read many accounts of Germans that actively opposed Hitler, during the war and they were not all Jews. The situation might be different today because we are not talking about our closest neighbours and fellow citizens, but a population in a country most people had barely heard about before the war started.

I believe people know when their political leaders are lying. They knew Hitler was wrong from the start and they knew the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were not about helping the people or making our own countries safer. Incidentally, two British Parlamentary reports into the wars in Iraq and Libya concluded that they were based on lies. Politicians and media failed us, but those few journalists, activsts and scholars that have tried to follow the evidence of for example gas attacks in Syria, point towards the rebels, the so-called moderate islamists. It’s not that it’s not being reported at all, but articles like UN has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas:investigator from Reuters are usually ignored. We don’t want to know. I believe the Hitler trick still very much sums up how the democracy we want to share with the rest of the world works.

I believe you have a pretty good idea that news and statements from the government are narrations, but we like it when it makes us look strong and when it doesn’t have any consequences for us. We are being told a version of the truth, and in that sense I don’t think there is a country without a conspiracy. There are no known cases of a conspiracy in Norway. Nothing has ever been exposed, although there are some suspicious cases, but when I read the news and compare it to independent news from Syria, I know there is a Hitler trick in operation. Anything else would be a child’s naive fantasy.

Paradise in Norway: Stormclouds on the horizon

We can have the most talented people in the White House we can come up with. But if Americans don’t understand what’s at stake and are not pushing good people into government to do the right thing, eventually the moneyed interests are going to win out because there’s nobody else that is loud enough to be heard.

I started with something Robert Reich, author, professor at Berkely and former politician, said in an interview. It’s a reminder of our own responsibility. Many seem to suffer from the illusion that the world became less democratic with Trump in the USA, and the so-called populist wave in Europe. Everything was apparantly hunky-dory under the Bush family in the USA, and in the EU before the British voters decided to use their democratic right to take their independence back.

It’s a classic sign that you have something to hide. Imagine a scene from a crime show. The police are searching through the suspect’s apartment. He has hidden whatever the officers are looking for very well, so he remains calm. The police eventually come close to the secret storage and the suspect starts to sweat and get a very worried look on his face. He may try to divert the officers’ attention or even shout in panick as he realizes it’s too late.

That’s the way the world is run these days. An excessive amount of truth and democracy are dangerous, so authorities aim to reduce the extent of these concepts in society. They have hidden the true story. Socialism became a liability a long time ago, which means that the American dream is no longer a goal. Socialism and the American dream have a lot of things in common as both deal with distribution or redistribution. That’s basically what the American dream was about. You could start out poor and make a fortune, but a major part of the American dream was also about working less. Many had more time to do things with their families, which wasn’t an option before. It was also about not starving. People didn’t have to become rich to accomplish that, so socialism was a significant part of the Anerican dream. It was still possible to become stinking rich because the dream wasn’t about equal outcome. It was about equal opportunity.

Norway is a socialist country, but not the kind of socialism you hear about on Fox News. There is inequality here as well, and it’s growing. The official story was that we didn’t feel the financial crisis of 2008 at all, but according to a report from the Labour and Welfare Administration from December last year we are becoming less equal. The most disturbing trend is that people under 30 give up. They report that they are looking for jobs without actually applying for any. That is a problem because research and experience from other countries (such as socialist Scotland) show that poverty can be inherited. If children never see their parents go to work, or do anything productive, there is a good chance they won’t amount to anything themselves.

The former and present leader of Norwegian Labour, Jens Stoltenberg and Jonas gahr Støre. I wonder why they tend to remind me of Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone. Photo: Arbeiderpartiet via Flickr
The former and present leader of Norwegian Labour, Jens Stoltenberg and Jonas Gahr Støre. I wonder why they tend to remind me of Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone. Photo: Arbeiderpartiet via Flickr

It is still better to be poor here than in many other countries. We have programs that help people, but I think we are moving closer to an unsustainable society. The American dream was about equal opportunities, not equal outcome. That’s all we can ask for. That doesn’t seem to apply anywhere in the world anymore. Equal opportunity starts the year you start school. I think it’s fair to say that some schools have better buildings, better and more technical equipment, better teachers, and better food than other schools. By the time students apply for university, they are not on equal terms. It doesn’t matter how hard they work and how much they contribute.

It’s not on the same level in Norway as in the USA of course, but the financial crisis in 2008 may have changed my country permanently. We know that increased immigration adds to poverty, so this “everybody is welcome and they don’t have to work-attitude” is more than a little naive. There is a lot of potentially negative things connected at the moment. This is about the economy in most of the world, it’s about Trump, the future of EU, Brexit, a possibly Frexit, and it’s about NATO’s desire to fight democracy anywhere. We all talk about democracy, but the truth is that democratic governments don’t want democracy. It just gets in their way.

Norway promotes a new world order

Statements like that quickly get you labeled a conspiracy theorist, and in a country like Norway that just means you do your own thinking. You’d think new world order was controversial, but if you google it you’ll find quotes by JFK, Richard Nixon, Joe Biden, George Bush and least surprising of all, Henry Kissinger. You may phrase it differently, but when President Obama said that all nations must come together to build a stronger global regime, it sounded pretty world order to me.

The Labour Party in Norway had their convention a couple of weeks ago, and one of their statements was especially disturbing. They said that the party wanted to promote a global order with the UN as a core, but they were also prepared to continue supporting US military action without a mandate from the UN. How is this different from a new world order?

The University of Zürich has made a list of the most globalised countries in the world, and it shows that Europe is much more globalised than the USA. I guess it’s not that surprising if you think of where the major companies and influences come from. We are the targets. Norway isn’t exactly influencing the lives of Americans. Have you heard about Yara International? They produce fertilisers and employ 8 000 people. How about the retailer Reitan Group with its 27 000 employees? These are pretty big companies, but not exactly on the level of McDonalds, Coca Cola, Apple and Facebook.

We have always seen America as a friend, and US influence has always been regarded as something positive, but I don’t think we should let our friend get away anything. When Donald Trump gave the order to launch Tomahawk missiles towards Syria, he became the US president. Many see the use of force or looking good on TV as being presidential, even when they are not sure it’s the right thing to do. Anything but complete support is seen as unpatriotic, but I wish being patriotic meant telling your government how it should act. We have the same problem in Norway. We can’t debate whether or not we should support actions that may be a violation of international law. We support the USA no matter what, and when you expect that kind of totally blind loyalty, you have started walking down a path that will lead you to a dark place. I am still a US supporter, but I like a democracy where you can express concern, and I am concerned about what our old friend is doing right now. I personally don’t think America or any other region of this world will be great without the values that made us great in the first place. I think our biggest flaw is that we insist on removing the spritual content from our civilization, and as a result of that many choose something far worse.

Just out of curiousity, what do you consider to be reasonable for a dominating country to do towards others? If that is reasonable for us, would it be the same if things were reversed and Russia did it to us?

Retrace Syria’s steps

The remains of Serjilla, a settlement i Syria bult in 473 when Syrians were Chriatians. These seetlements are called dead cities because they were abandoned when Muslims invaded the country. Syria is one of the oldest members of the global church with a 10 percent Christian population today. Why have we forgotten them? Photo: James Gordon via Wikimedia Commons
The remains of Serjilla, a Syrian settlement from 473 when the country was Christian. These seetlements are called dead cities because they were abandoned when Muslims invaded the country. 10 percent of Syrians are still Christians. Why have we forgotten them? Photo: James Gordon via Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes it’s useful to take s few steps back and try to retrace the steps to where we are today. I believe that could explain what has happened in West Asia, and what is going to happen. When the Arab League debated Iraq in 2003 Syria and Libya spoke out against intervention. Iran was in a tricky situation because after fighting off an invasion attempt from Iraq during most of the 1980’s, the regime in Tehran was not exactly thrilled about supporting Saddam Hussein, but not interested in inviting American troops next door either. But I think it’s safe to say that they didn’t support the US invasion of Iraq. Assad of Syria was especially adament that it would destabilize Iraq, and consequently Syria, as they share a long border. It turned out he was right.

When NATO-countries really want us to see the Iranian and Syrian regimes as the two biggest threats to world peace my couriosity is being aroused. Why are they dangerous to us? I’m asking because Iran has a relatively low military budget compared to other countries in the region. Saudi Arabia was the biggest spender ( $ 63.7 billion) in 2016 behind the three big ones, USA, China and Russia, which makes them the biggest military threat in the region. Iran is number 19 on the list and spent $ 12.3 billion on the military last year, which is 5.5 less than Israel. So why do Israel and the USA maintain that Iran is preparing a nuclear attack on Israel? There is no evidence for this claim, but you could probably argue that Iran, whether they have nukes or not, want to deter their enemies. Apart from the ordinary and expected verbal threats against Israel, they seem more interested in self-preservation.

“We” have been decent enough to stabilize Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now we are working on Syria. Most people can’t remember how or why the war in Syria started, so it might be useful to go back. Iran, Syria and Libya didn’t want American involvement in Iraq. Does it appear to you that we have been terribly succesful? The truth is that defense and deterrence is a threat if you have other plans. If your plan is to violate international law by replacing the regime with one that will follow your orders, then of course defense is a threat.

I think we can expect to see an attack on Iran if Syria falls. What does this tell us about the war on terror? At the very least it’s very confusing. NATO like to say that they work with moderate Muslims in Syria. These are around 1000 groups that have formed different alliances and affiliations with Al Qaida, Taliban and similar organizations. There is also evidence to suggest that NATO have been supporting ISIL because that is a way to attack the regime indirectly. I am sure there are moderate Muslims among these, but there are not enough to go around. In any case, the war on terror is crap, and I believe all the touching words about helping the children in Aleppo, Damascus, Homs and other Syrian cities are equally false.

I don’t think Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi were good men according to our standards. I am not convinced that Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad are any better, but I believe they love their countries. It’s not a governance the way we want it, but can we really offer them something better? Besides, what happened to our own democracies? It’s not exactly something I’d gladly give away as a gift to a friend.

As for Russia, I think Putin has multiple reasons for supporting the Syrian regime. He wants to keep the Russian base and an ally in West Asia, but as a leader of an old Christian culture I suspect that Putin also considers the 10 percent Christian population in Syria. I suspect he also thinks about Russia’s responsibility to maintain the balance between the powers, or to stop Western imperialism. That’s how occupied countries tend to see our interference, and I think it’s a correct perception. So if you ask what alliance is the biggest threat to world peace I am not sure the answer should be Russia, Syria and Iran.

Arab leaders declare opposition to war in Iraw (CNN)
List of countries by military expenditures (Wikipedia)