Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Category: ENGLISH (Page 20 of 27)

There a few posts written in English

To the slaughterhouse

Mine is a green country. Not politically green, albeit, but green as in pine trees, mountain rivers and grasshoppers.

No, I don’t live in Greenland, which is not green, as it happens. Moreover, my country is only green for four months a year, and I grew up wearing long woollen underwear for the remaining 8 months, four of which were decidedly white – you know, the colour you see on Christmas cards – and four of which were tantalisingly undetermined. Autumn was anything but green, but gloriously colourful and crisp unless early snowfalls turned it into a soggy grey porridge, so grey and dark that it suctioned all spirit out of about a quarter of the population. Spring, however, made us weep or laugh hysterically, as glittering icicles would melt and brooks tinkle one day, only to turn hard as stone the next. And it would go on like that for two whole excruciating months, at the end of which we would be quite woozy.

We longed passionately for Summer in spite of the periodically daily showers, the mosquitoes and wasps, and the ice-cold floors that would meet our naked feet as we got out of bed in the morning. We loved the little patches of farmland scratched out of the landscape we passed on our way to summer vacation as the guests of aunts and uncles in the country. As for the distant blue mountains, we took them for granted, as we did delicate birch trees, bluebells, waterfalls, furry bumblebees and warblers.

Above all, though, we loved those rare days – maybe a week or two every year – of “real” summer, when we left town seeking those warm, smooth coastal granite shelves on which we would bask or rise to dive like terns into the sea. No matter if summers were full of rain, if day after day was uniformly grey, cool and wet, our mental health for eight months depended on those rare days of “real” summer.

I speak in the past, as you see. Winters are no longer white, for one thing, and the seasons are all mixed up. This year, an unusually cold Winter started when Spring should have begun, and all of a sudden, on 14 May, Summer erupted with a vengeance. Andalusian temperatures, no less. People couldn’t sleep at night. Not a drop of rain, not a cloud in the sky, not a single fly or wasp to be seen, not to mention bees or bumblebees.

Eventually, after four weeks, torrential rains battered us for one day. Floods, avalanches, even deaths. After a couple of cool days, a new heat wave bore down upon us.

No rain. Weeks and weeks of no rain. The country isn’t used to this. Farmers aren’t used to this. Animals aren’t used to this. There is no grass for livestock, and slaughterhouse employees are being called back to work in mid-holiday. Never, ever, as far back as records go, has there been such a long-lasting heat wave and drought in these parts. But we, the cityfolks, are blissfully unaware of the farmers’ plight. So was I, until ….:

I sought refuge from the heat in a cottage by the sea. How I enjoyed basking, once more, on a warm granite coastal shelf! How ecstatically I dove into the sea. My joy was, however, short-lived: On the island across the sound, a ewe with her two lambs was disconsolately examining the stones and shells of a little beach, while a solitary lamb was bleating pitifully, as it ran back and forth along the shore. It had evidently lost its mother. Have you ever heard a lamb bleating for its mother? The lamb was several months old and quite able to fend for itself, I should have thought, but it was, I insist, heart-broken. No other word will do. Some of its cries were uncannily similar to those of an abandoned child! I could not bear the sound and ran indoors.

Even there, the lamb’s cries pursued me. Until it fell silent. That was almost worse, because I was sure it was still there. I looked out the window, and indeed, there it was, lying by the shore. It had lost all hope. I asked myself: can lambs be suicidal?

I could not stand the idea, so I went out again and down to the shore. As if sensing the existence of an ally in me, a human on the opposite shore, the lamb jumped up, ran back and forth along the shore bleating even more desperately than before. Just how desperate it was became apparent almost immediately, because it waded into the sea, deeper and deeper – ‘NO!’, I shouted and started talking off my clothes, because a lamb is not a dog who obeys orders, while deeper and deeper it went, and of course in the end, the sea lifted it off its feet.

It swam, would you believe it! I’m sure it had never learnt to swim, but it swam, knowing, as it must have, that the alternative was death by drowning. Staring straight into my eyes, it swam and bleated, while I stood waiting for it with tears streaming down my face.

No, I did not have to go out and rescue a drowning lamb. It managed to swim across the sound and clambered to shore, looking no less frightened than it should, because humans are mostly dangerous for sheep, though some humans offer fodder and a safe haven. It had risked its life by trusting me, and now it doubted.

There is one thing I have not told you, though. I knew where its mother was. She had crossed the sound over to my side a few hours previously, taking one of her two lambs with her, and they had all been taken care of by good people and their children, who also phoned the owner. “Come,” I said, “follow me”. The lamb had no alternative but to follow hesitantly, evidently terrified that I would lead it to the slaughterhouse.

The children who were looking after the mother were the first to see it. Their gleeful shouts alerted the ewe, and I shall never forget the ensuing concerto for a reunited ewe and two lambs in two octaves. The joy was simply – I apologise for abusing the word – heartbreaking.

Two days later, I crossed to the island to inspect matters there. Walking around the entire island would have taken the better part of a day, but I turned back halfway. The sights that met me were too depressing. Barren fields. Dead vegetation. No fresh water. Not even mosquitoes.

I came upon the owner of the sheep, who was rounding them up to drive them elsewhere. I dared not ask: Was she going to the slaughterhouse? She was unhappy: Two were missing, a ewe and a lamb. We both knew that they might have crossed over to my side and drowned.

What can you do?

Poodling

We used to be a peace-loving nation, or so I’m told, until our current right-wing government aided by the Secretary General of NATO turned our country into the Emperor’s poodle (no offence intended to poodles, believe me).

However, I don’t think we’ve ever been any more peace-loving than the other lot, whoever they are (probably no less, either). After all we’ve been a major arms supplier for years. In 2008, Norway was the world’s fourth largest arms exporter according to Statistics Norway.

Though our importance as a global arms exporter declined somewhat after 2008, our exports to Saudi Arabia and that country’s buddies Kuwait and UAE  have risen sharply of late. In fact, our arms exports rose by 33% in 2017 as compared to 2016 (s0urce: NRK August 2018). Interestingly, in terms of “Military weapons, incl. sub-machine guns”, we ranked as the world’s second largest exporter in 2017, according to ITC.

However long our would-be status as a peace-loving nation has been dragged by the Emperor’s chariot through Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, indirectly, also Jemen, we found out a long time ago, maybe as far back as in the Palaeolithic period, that to have friends, you must have enemies; your friends’ enemies. If your friends wish to stop all immigration, you virulently oppose all who take the opposite view, also those who say that well, we cannot let everybody in, but …And vice versa! If you fiercely uphold a position of neutrality in the matter of one war or another, everybody else, on either side, is your enemy.

Now the things that you and your friends strongly dislike make up a disparate bundle, and that is all fine and dandy, and we can all proudly agree that you and I and all our friends are individualist, until we get down to fashions and food (well, perhaps not all that individualist). And as for friends and enemies, if what people wear when we first meet them, and what they eat, doesn’t immediately give away their positions on the issues that matter (music, immigrants, football, climate, computer habits, etc.), we discreetly ask them a few test questions and WAM, they are either in or out, and that’s that.

We don’t shoot enemies anymore, at least not within this realm; we just don’t waste our breath on those who are out. We don’t even shout at them, but treat them quite simply as non-existent, just like our predecessors treated slaves or servants. More’s the pity; we might otherwise learn a thing or two. After all, if two parties differ, one of them is evidently wrong, maybe both, and there may be something to be said for both of the opposing views. Take the Palestine issue, for instance, nobody, not even the Palestinians, have ever maintained that they haven’t made some pretty fatal mistakes, though they don’t agree on just what those mistakes were. And as for the Israeli side, there is absolutely no doubt that as late as in the 1940s, there still seemed absolutely nowhere in the world for Jews to go except to the USA, and even there, anti-Semitism was common.

But no, we don’t listen, we don’t speak, we don’t even shout, we just turn our backs.

So now the horses dragging the chariot are stomping at the borders of Venezuela, while the Emperor and his buddies, Saudi Arabia and Israel are all itching to to get rid of Iran, and his slightly reticent partners of war in NATO are whipping up a hysterical fear of Russia, and boy does the Emperor ever have them in his pocket! Yes, no matter how they smile condescendingly over the Emperor’s antics, they have more or less invited him into their beds: They have been deluded into imagining that Russia is a goblin that will stop at nothing, as opposed to them and their equally morally superior friends, and where will they be without him if Russia decides to gobble up all of Europe?

The “what if” game

Have you heard the tale about the three wishes, the bickering couple and the sausage that ended up hanging from the wife’s nose?

Nowadays, marital discord is more likely to be resolved with a murder than with a magical sausage implant. In fact, most people today, myself included, “don’t believe in” magic.

But you never know. Do you think the US emperor had read Philip Roth’s 2004 novel “Plot Against America” before he stood for president? I find that very unlikely. Yet, something the author imagined could have happened in 1940 (but didn’t), did in fact happen in 2017: A man with no real or academic knowledge of political science, social sciences or any other science (unless you consider a Bachelor of Economics and a capacity to bully other people “academic knowledge”), a man whose primitive slogan was “America First” became president. In Philip Roth’s “what if” game, “America First” is for Christians, not Jews. In the unreal reality that our disbelieving eyes have been following since 2017, as though it were a dystopic TV series, “America First” admittedly welcomes Jews. Nevertheless, Trump’s reign has distressed and deeply saddened “most American Jews”, cf. CNN 16/5/2018

As I see it, it is grossly unfair that US Jews so often are blamed by people all over the world for the crimes against humanity committed by Israel. It is not the American Jews that root for the eviction of Palestinians, the occupation of the West Bank and the imprisonment of the entire population of Gaza, but mostly Evangelical Protestants and the Tea Party movement. Unfortunately, as a result of Israel’s heinous crimes against humanity, anti-Semitism will increase.

In his novel, Philip Roth claims that fellow Americans were anti-Semitic when he grew up. I believe him! I believe him because in Plot Against America he strikes me as being meticulously, almost drearily, realistic. Philip Roth is not generally dreary! So in this novel, he is making a tremendous effort to cling to reality. Yet, the plot, the election of an “America First” man as president in 1940, is only a pseudo-reality, which turned out to be real reality in 2017… and now I, writing this, am totally confused. What is real, what is not and what is simply (black) magic?

I think Philip Roth is far from the only person who has played the “what if game”. In fact, I am sure that you, as I, will have heard players define the stakes, and you, as I, will have shaken your head doubtfully about the outcome of some of the most common “what if ” propositions.

  • What if the world were ruled by men only?
    (Oh, well, we know all about that.)
  • What if the world were ruled by women?
    (Not sure the outcome would be all that much better.)
  • What if the world were ruled by me?
    (We know, or should know, a lot about that as well. But do we learn? Have we even started to learn to recognise the psychopaths whose aim it is to rule the world?)

At the moment, however, I am more concerned about the aspect – potential aspect, admittedly – of magic in all of this. Wouldn’t it be nice if wishful thinking could ensure a different sort of  “what if”?

What if almost all of us wished that everybody in this world could be guaranteed adequate nourishment and drinking water, basic accommodation (with sewage and electricity, etc.), adequate health care and adequate education? Would our wishing it make it happen?

52 shot dead today in Gaza…

… and still counting.

The emperor and his henchmen seem determined to unleash a new world war. I am not, for the moment, referring to the latest insults against Iran (though the gods above know there is reason to). I am asking myself: Where does he want all the Palestinians to go? Does he expect Palestinians whose homes on the west bank get demolished by occupant settlers and those who get evicted from their homes in East Jerusalem to go quietly?  And where should they go? Or does it seem ok to just continue killing them?

Meanwhile, it has come to my attention that people are hearing two very different versions of the Palestine story. Two stories, in fact. You might think they were about two very different issues. In one of the stories there is no mention of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 adopted on December 11, 1948, which reads:

…that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

There are also a lot of other pretty important details that are left out of the story told in the US and Israel. Obviously, in the heat of the day, people will exaggerate, will be tempted to distort facts, and listeners will innocently repeat the fallacies they hear, so misconceptions are bound to get spread to a large public.

But in this, as in a number of other issues, there is more afoot than what can be explained as overly enthusiastic storytelling: One side is deliberately and systematically doctoring the story, and I am not only  referring to hawkish Israelis, but to the born-again Christians that make up much of the Zionist Lobby in the US. To many fundamentalist Christians, the “Holy Land” appears to mean as much as to fundamentalist Jews; for them human Law, not to mention international law, appears not to apply to the Holy Land. It must at all costs be saved from the “infidels”. (Nevermind that many Palestinians are Christian, too.)

I am not sufficiently well informed about the sway of born-again Christians in the US, but I understand that they were largely to blame for the rise to presidency of the remarkably ignorant and incompetent George W. Bush. To manage such a feat they must have very great power, I reason.

The fact that Israeli hawkish politicians spread all kinds of untruths about the “enemy” is understandable. So would leading politicians of any country at war. What is interesting, though, is that the majority of the Israeli public want peace. So they must be told that the enemy is a serious threat to national security. Because the hawks do not, repeat – not – want peace. They want more land.

The majority of the Palestinians also want peace, but not at any cost. Yet, the Palestinian and the Israeli authorities are not, as you see, eagerly negotiating peace, and we are told that the Palestinians are to blame for this. Yet there have been serious efforts in the past, and if Israel had not had the undivided support of the US, there would probably have been a peace accord.

This is where the Zionist Lobby comes in. The Lobby has sway on US foreign policy. The US has sway over NATO, and NATO defines my country’s foreign policy.

Any peace agreement would have to be on Israel’s terms, you see, and Israel wants the West Bank (preferably without Palestinians in it). The US supports Israel, in all conceivable shapes and forms, not least financially, and a large part of the world cannot afford to challenge the US on this score, or for that matter on any other score, as we have seen since the mad hatter came to power. The outcome of a peace agreement on Israel’s terms would, for Palestine, be nill, the end.

Nill. We are not talking about compromise here. We are talking about extermination. Extermination of Palestine. I suspect that Palestinians living on the West Bank would be given the option of leaving (they would certainly not be welcomes as refugees to Europe) or of becoming second degree citizens of Israel, without the same rights as Jews.

This is the story as I understand it: The options are pretty bleak for Palestinians and Israel would go down in history as being guilty of genocide.

Today I stumbled across a site that seemed interesting. I am, after all accusing the US of enabling Israel to continue occupying neighbouring territories and ultimately of genocide. The site is not updated anymore, but exploring its innumerable pages, I found much historically interesting material. I have not explored it at length, so I cannot vouch for it, but I found its Mission Statement attactive. http://ifamericaknew.org/about_us/

 

 

SHAME!

Norway is a country that claims to be peace-loving, humanitarian and certainly not racist. While Hungary is being hounded by other EU nations due to its animosity to refugees, and Poland is being hounded for its disrespect of the justice system, Norway is not hounded by anybody.

However, in all practical terms, Norway has virtually closed its borders to refugees, and today an interesting decision reached by Norway’s Immigration Appeals Board was made known to the press.

It’s a symbolic case, you might say. An Afghan family came to Norway in 2011 and was allowed to live in the small town Dokka, in the forbidding central mountain massive. The current government is, however, adamantly opposed to immigration, probably no less so than Victor Orban’s government, and the family was subsequently ordered to leave the country.

Meanwhile, the town they lived in appeared to have adopted the family that had landed on its doorstep, not least the little girl Farida, and took the case to court. And won. The Immigration Appeals Board appealed. And lost. The matter has been considered by three court instances, and even the Supreme Court upheld the decision to allow the family to live in Norway.

So much for court rulings.

The Immigration Appeals Board’s grounds for flouting the Supreme Court is, apparently, that the situation in Afghanistan is now “stable” (whatever that means!) if not in the part of the country the family came from, at least in Kabul.

Now I have not previously paid any attention to the so-called “Farida Case”. But in the back of my mind I have been wondering how many of the Afghan returnees from sanctimonious Norway have been hit by the rising number of bomb blasts in Afghanistan over the past months. Hardly a week passes without brief news reports from Afghanistan, of a new horrible blood bath, more often than not caused by IS, rather than the Taliban. This is exactly as expected: As IS was being driven out of Mosul and Raqqa, it was clear that they would step up operations in fragile Afghanistan.

I am including a list of incidents gleaned mostly from Reuters (with a filter of “Kabul” + “past month”). The reason I concentrated on Kabul was that this city was specifically referred to as “stable” in the decision to flout the Supreme Court.

30/4/2018 (Reuters about Kabul): In all, 26 people died in the two blasts, which were claimed by Islamic State.
22/4/2018 KABUL (Reuters) – The death toll from Sunday’s blast in the Afghan capital Kabul rose to 48, with 112 others wounded, a public health officer said. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the blast set off by a suicide bomber outside a voter registration center.
12/4/2018 KABUL (Reuters) – The number of civilians killed and wounded by suicide bombings and “complex attacks” in Afghanistan has more than doubled so far this year, the United Nations said on Thursday.

Suicide bombings and attacks by militant groups killed or maimed 751 people from January through March, one-third of total civilian cases, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said. Attacks are considered “complex” when the assailants employ a variety of means.

One suicide attack in January carried out in vehicles disguised as ambulances, killed more than 100 people in Kabul.

Overall, UNAMA recorded 763 civilian deaths and 1,495 injuries in the first quarter, similar to the same period in each of the past two years. Fighting on the ground was the second-leading cause of civilian deaths and injuries.

Cases attributed to anti-government forces, mainly the Taliban and Islamic State, increased 6 percent year-on-year to 1,500.

In addition:

(Wikipedia on the War in Afghanistan): The UN estimates that 1,662 civilians were killed from January through June 2017.

4/5 /2018 (Reuters): In terms of districts, the government controls or influences 56.3 percent of the country, the second lowest level since at least 2015, the latest report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, a U.S. congressional watchdog, shows.

The proverbial “none”

Crime fiction never seems to go out of fashion, as opposed to just about everything else, so we all know that to find the culprit we have to examine who had the means, the motive and no alibi. Whether or not he or she confesses is neither here nor there, as we all know, so when the Russians dismiss the accusations of being behind the nerve gas incident in Salisbury, there is absolutely no reason to believe them. After all, Clinton never had sex with …. etc., etc., and etc. Likewise, when Assad says the accusation about his use of chemical weapons is “madness”, there is no reason to believe him either.

I do not doubt that the Russians and Assad had and have the means to do what they are being accused of and goodness knows what else, as well, but I most definitely wonder what their motives for such acts would have been.

Unless the perpetrator is psychotic, his or her motives for committing the crime in question tend to be recognisable, the most notable being on the one hand jealousy, revenge and/or ideology and, on the other, a lust for money, sex and/or power, or so we are given to understand.

As for the motives of international players, they may ostensibly be more complex, but no matter how misguided the players’ moves are, you can always see the motive, the driving force: They want the upper hand, i.e. power.

For some decades now we have seen any number of international conventions, agreements and treaties according to which all signatories agree to follow certain rules of the game, such as that of not using chemical weapons.

Twice in the course of a very short period of time, this rule has apparently been deliberately and insolently flouted. Now why on earth would Russia and then Syria want to tell the world that “we don’t give a damn about international conventions”? What on earth is won by such a tactic? If the Russians wanted to kill their former agent in Salisbury, there would have been any number of ways of doing so more or less discreetly. As for Syria, the war is basically won for Assad. A chemical attack is unbelievably redundant. (True enough, so were the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Why would Assad, on the threshold of winning his ugly war, risk having all eyes of the world turned on him in outrage?

There are, however, players out there who most definitely would benefit from ‘framing’, as it were, Russia and Assad.

I cannot possibly know who done it (though I know very well where my suspicions lie). However, it is pretty clear that while the US and the EU have been busy isolating Russia, Iran, Turkey and of course Syria, these countries have drawn closer together and are forming some sort of informal alliance. With Mr Trump at the helm in the US, China, too, may well find itself in league with them.

Consider, then, an alliance between Russia, Iran, Turkey ( a NATO member, no less) and possibly China. That’s pretty heavy stuff. Consider, also, what such an alliance would mean for NATO, for Israel, for the EU and US, and for Saudi Arabia… I say no more.

Dead Rat

There is a dead rat somewhere. The question is: Where?

For one thing, there is this business of the expulsion of Russian diplomats from western countries. Journalists everywhere keep clamouring for evidence of the Russian government’s involvement in the Salisbury incident, and Boris Johnson is quoted as replying that Russia’s complicity is “rather like the beginning of ‘Crime and Punishment’ in the sense that we are all confident of the culprit, and the only question is whether he will confess or be caught.” To which a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson is said to have asked Mr Johnson whether he managed to make it past the beginning of the novel, quoting another line from the book: “From a hundred rabbits you can’t make a horse, a hundred suspicions don’t make a proof.

Now they are saying that it’s “not just Salisbury”, it’s a “reckless pattern of behaviour”, and they mention Crimea. So let’s take a look at Crimea.

The 2014 referendum (which overwhelmingly supported reunification with Russia) was undoubtedly flawed and certainly very disputed. Nevertheless, there seems no doubt that only about 10% of the Crimean population spoke Ukrainian as their native language at the time and that the majority of Crimea’s inhabitants have considered themselves ethnically Russian for a very long time (67% in the 1989 census, 60% in 2001 and 65% in 2014). In addition, after the fall of the Soviet Union, exiled Crimean Tartars started returning and made up more than 10% of the population. (Source: Wikipedia 31.03.2018)

Much as the Crimea affair was irregular, the Russian side was very understandable given the country’s long-standing friction with Ukraine. Have we forgotten the sources of that friction? Have we for instance forgotten the pipeline through Ukraine from which Russian gas was “diverted” by Ukraine for years?

Do not misunderstand me: If the Russian government did indeed carry out a public liquidation in Salisbury, I’m all for the expulsion of Russian diplomats. It’s just that the Western hand in this matter does not seem clean. So whose hands are dirtiest?

Why is so little mention made, on the British side, of the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a case that seemed pretty cut and dried at the time. Even the Russian media thought FSB was responsible. This puzzles me, so I have been reading about it.

Both the murder itself and the British investigation into it appear to have been fairly clumsy affairs, for one thing, and if the Russian secret service was responsible, clumsiness would not have been expected. As for the British, they vociferously requested the extradition of a Russian suspect, failing to remind the media that no civilised country ever extradites its own citizens.

Russia, on the other hand, requested the extradition of Boris Berezhovsky, whom they claimed they suspected. Now there is every reason to suspect this was a front on their part, but there appears to be no doubt that Mr Berezhovsky was a crook who had helped himself most liberally to taxpayers assets when the Soviet Union was dissolved. True, he was not the only one to do so, but people who go to court claiming three billion pounds in damages, as he did in London in 2012, are not your ordinary paper thief.

The British refused to extradite him. Moreover, they have been protecting a number of other personages that are lining UK banks with their assets. I quote the Telegraph:

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has ordered a retrospective investigation into past cases of “investor visas”, which are open to people who stake £2m or more in the UK.

The visas are a way for the super-rich to fast-track their residency and citizenship in Britain.

About 700 Russians were granted the gold-plated visas between 2008 and 2015, the Home Affairs Committee was told.

So Mr Berezhovsky was not the only Russian crook in the UK. Needless to say, the British do not extradite their citizens either, but granting rich Russians fast-track citizenship takes care of the issue. (I refer to Mr Berezhovsky in the past tense. The findings of his death coincided with suicide. Of course many people assume he was killed, but there was no evidence. The Russian state or the Mafia?)

The Telegraph politely refers to these “about 700” people as “super-rich”. Permit me to use a different word: “Mafia”. State-sponsored public liquidations have rather gone out of fashion, whereas Mafia liquidations are still bread and butter in many countries.

Finally, I wish to make it very clear that I’m not saying the Russians “didn’t do it”. I’m just saying that some pieces of the puzzle just don’t fit. There is a dead rat somewhere.

Democratic deficit

After two world wars, Europeans had had enough of wars, and so we saw the slow but inexorable development of the EC, which has evolved into the EU.

Now, it is true that many considered this multinational organisation a bureaucratic and undemocratic mastodon, and for many years the Scandinavian countries, for instance, refused to join, with good reason, you might say. There are certainly grounds for maintaining that joining the EU weakens national sovereignty, and there is undoubtedly the matter of the “democratic deficit”.

On the other hand, where is there no “democratic deficit”? Personally, I’m not really sure what “democracy” means, in spite of all we can read about the topic in various sources. Forget about the ancient Greeks, for a moment, though the concept is said to stem from them; in Athens only a small proportion of males, i.e. landowners, were “eligible” to vote, as it were. So Athens doesn’t really count as a model.

In modern-day western societies, we see more or less fascist movements gaining ground through fair elections. We also see elections that are not blatantly unfair but dubious. I won’t detail what I mean by dubious – each country has its own turgid electoral issues with or without the involvement of the Russians, fake-news factories, abused Facebook data etc. Be all that as it may, we are left with a lot of question marks regarding even so called “fair elections”.

Regardless of our doubts, however, most of us in the west still agree that we value certain standards of law. We need to trust that our courts and law enforcement are politically, financially and personally impartial and just. Most of us also firmly adhere to the importance of civil liberties.

So where does that leave us?

I knew a man who used to say, “nowhere in the Bible have I found any statement to the effect that parents must love their children”. I believe him. He had actually read the Bible many times. The Bible only commands us to love and obey our parents, and that’s it.

I find a parallel in our faith in “democracy”: We believe in it as though it were the Bible, but nobody requires us to vote for what is best for the country, for society or for humankind. All a voter needs to do is to vote for whoever will best serve his or her personal interests. Now.

Right. And now we have a situation of impeding serious climate change. Left to choose between a policy that will impose inter alia serious restrictions on personal travel and make a dent on our personal finances, or, on the other hand, business as usual, what do you and I choose?

And we have a situation in which parts of the world population are destitute, desperate and/or even angry. Do we choose to leave them to their own devices, put them into concentration camps, or even exterminate them? Or do we consider a different order?

Finally, we have a situation in most western countries where a growing proportion are growing poorer by the year, where the welfare state is crumbling and where young women are increasingly reluctant to bear children for fear of what the future may bring. It is very tempting to blame “the others”, i.e. China, Russia, the immigrants, and all the oddballs that make a society colourful. Are there any other sources of concern?

The EU may be a bureaucratic mastodon, but from my perspective, the EU is a relatively civilising force in Europe at the moment. Not that I trust the EU. The EU was from its inception, and still is, a fundamentally capitalist animal. But so far, no successful alternative to capitalism has been devised. (Russia and China are, after all, as capitalist as the rest of us.) The EU aims, at least, to resist individual countries’ and companies’ attempts to undermine the rule of law, and to defend civil liberties. The EU even defends, to a certain extent, its members’ welfare state. And the EU realises, unlike most of us, that in the end, we will all be the losers of climate change.

There is no punch line here, except that if you are itching for a new war, you may not be disappointed. I only hope that the majority of Europeans take to their senses. Soon.

 

Gabriel

I can’t get Gabriel out of my head.

He disappeared on 27 February. I saw it on the news and since then, for some reason, the little boy has haunted me. The whole business has seemed so utterly improbable in every way.

He left his grandparents’ house to go and visit his cousins, just a hundred metres, or so, down the road, but apparently he never got there. The reporters have taken us back and forth that short stretch of dirt road time and time again, telling us, the viewers – and repeating time and time again – that nothing, absolutely nothing dangerous lay along the road. No pond, no bog, no cliff….

Above all, no crime could possibly have befallen him in such a godforsaken place with only 73 inhabitants (according to Wikipedia). Everybody knows everybody, and you simply cannot hide.

We were shown pictures of him, an eight-year-old with a beautiful smile on his cheerful face. His mother spoke to the TV-cameras, begging for help – she too was beautiful, I thought – explaining that he was a very good little boy who liked drawing fishes and who wanted to be a marine biologist. “If anyone out there is keeping him, please, I beg you, bring him back safe and sound,” she said. I was obviously not the only one who was moved by her appeal, because around 5000 people came to that desolate little village to comb the surrounding countryside.

Day after day, Gabriel with the sunny smile was the centrepiece of the evening news. Nor was there any escape from the agonised faces of the boy’s father and his girlfriend. There were endless search parties crossing drab, treeless hills that were almost the same grey-green colour as the Guardia Civil. Grim looks in every face. All of Spain held its breath.

On 3 March, a shirt belonging to the boy was found.

Then I left Spain and thought I had heard the last of the matter. But no. One day I stumbled across El Pais, and there he was on the front page. On 11 March, they had found him. Dead. In the boot of a car. “We wept when we saw the body,” said one of the officers in charge of the investigation.

Apparently Guardia Civil had suspected the murderer ever since the shirt was found. For various reasons, they believed it had been placed there by the person who found it. They kept the suspect under close surveillance, and in the end, they intercepted her car as she was moving the corpse.

Yes, her. The murderer was the father’s girlfriend. She had played the prominent part of grieving, close relative before the press, weeping and giving several interviews.

I just can’t get Gabriel out of my head!  That is why I have to write about him. I keep seeing the countryside, plain and dispassionate, the very antithesis of violent crime. And I keep wondering: What motive could possibly be strong enough to warrant the killing of a bright and sunny-tempered eight-year-old?

And I keep thinking: If a woman is capable of doing that and, having done so, of feigning the intense commiseration and grief of a deeply caring, kind, attentive and loving partner, while in constant limelight day after day – 12 days in all – what are other women capable of doing?

Already, all the details of the matter are on Wkikpedia.

Paradise on earth

From my rooftop terrace in the old town on top of the cliff, I might perhaps be excused for imagining that this is a beautiful world. Squinting against the sun, I see undulating green fields, pink almond blossoms, pale against the rich green foliage of orange trees, frolicking birds, a twinkling river – all carefree under a warm mid-February sun. From my long walks in the mountains just a few kilometres away, I know that some wild animals still survive , and even here, in this very village, by the river, there are exotic birds and otters. On one of my walks near the town I actually saw a mongoose.

Yes, this part of the world is without doubt beautiful, at least for some of us, it is.

A financial crisis struck Spain in 2007, and banks had to be bailed out with tax payers’ money. Now, they say, the crisis is over, but a large part of the middle class has been pauperised since 2007, as by a stroke of lightning. More than 37% of those who are 25 or younger are still unemployed.

As for this village, time has forgotten it, has passed it by. In the old town, many have moved out, and lots of the town’s 16th–19th century mansions have been partially or entirely abandoned and left to crumble, while people who still live here try as best they can to whitewash their erstwhile seigniorial dwellings in time for Easter every year.

My neighbours live on what they can gather from day to day. Wild asparagus, for instance, which is sold in the streets, or snails. But Spain is still, after all, in the EU, and people are not allowed to die of starvation. There are social services. And neighbours help each other as best they can. One neighbour is nearly a hundred years old, and her mind has long departed. Her six children take turns nursing her. Lifting her out of bed, dressing her, feeding her, taking her to the toilet, putting her to bed… They have been doing so for years. And years. And years.

This is a kind village. A very kind village. Very little crime. You can walk safely home at night.

Meanwhile, hearing the faint echoes of the news, I ask myself: Why is mainstream media so pusillanimous about discussing the essence of each disaster? I mean ALL mainstream media, not just US media, though my example now is about the NRA: Just exactly what is the National Rifle Association? What is the socio-economic profile of its members? What is the average level of education of its members? What are the NRA’s links to the Republican Party? How much does the organisation as a whole plus individual members pay to maintain their political sway, officially and unofficially? And not least, what is the extent and the nature of the NRA’s links to the arms industry?

Such questions are important, are they not? Why do I hear so little about them? True, I am not a US American. But are these questions loudly addressed in the USA? Do US Americans understand why the NRA holds so much sway? For that matter, do US Americans understand why they are being ruled by a Donald Trump?

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑