Är valet över? Kan vi gå hem nu?
Monday, September 14, 2026
Tapto
Lite osammanhängande tankar denna måndagsmorgon år 2026...
Högerpartiernas seger 2022 var "rationell" i den meningen att "vänster"sidan misslyckats med att lösa vanliga väljares problem. Visst, högern ljög som grisar, men de ljög uppenbarligen om rätt saker. "Vänster"sidans kraftiga övertag i opinionsmätningarna för bara några månader sedan var också rationellt. Av samma orsaker som ovan! En klar valseger för denna sida hade också varit rationell. Eller "rationell".
Men vad i allsin dar ska man säga om det (förmodade) valresultatet? För närvarande är det bara 0,5% skillnad mellan de (förmodade) regeringsalternativen?!
Någonting väldigt konstigt har hänt i Sverige. Världens mest förutsägbara land (på gott och ont) har plötsligt blivit...jag vet inte...irrationellt? Och så har vi hela AI-problematiken också. Jag trodde AI mest bara var hajp. Eller den gamla vanliga skiten. Fast om de senaste nyheterna stämmer kanske det finns ett väldigt konkret och verkligt hot mot civilisationens överlevnad här.
Jag känner mig vilse i verkligheten. Vilken tur att jag för omkring ett år sedan bestämde mig för att bli andlig sökare så att säga "på allvar". Annars hade jag nog blivit jäkligt deprimerad.
Sluta fucking ljuga
 |
| - Jag taktikröstar på rådjuret! |
Kan vi sluta låtsas att Liberalernas valresultat var en "sensation", "en stor framgång", och så vidare? Alla vet att L är ett irrelevant pissparti och att de flesta av deras röster var stödröster / taktikröster. Företrädesvis från moderaterna. Kamrat "Alla Procent".
From Trotskyism to Tantrism?
 |
| Ganapati the Seeker |
The second part of ChatGPT´s analysis of *this* blog. However, the AI is confusing/conflating me with one of my commentators! Or several of them? So this is a bit "schizo". But still an intriguing read...
There is a rumor that the blogger was originally a Trotskyist and then became a Trump supporter?!
Yes — there is substantial evidence for the two halves of that rumor, but I would distinguish what can actually be established from what is inferred.
The blog itself gives us unusually strong clues.
The Trotskyist past looks quite plausible
The author clearly has deep first-hand familiarity with Trotskyist and other sectarian Marxist politics, far beyond what one would expect from someone who merely read about them.
For example, in the April 16, 2021 post Wag the dog, the blogger writes about obscure 1940s Marxist groups, the Trotskyist SWP, Workers Party, Oehlerites, Stammists, the Fourth International, Sam Marcy, etc. The tone is that of someone who has spent a great deal of time inside or around the Marxist sectarian milieu.
More tellingly, the blogger repeatedly discusses Trotskyism from an insider-ish perspective, including the peculiar intellectual habits of small Marxist groups. That's consistent with having actually been involved in that world.
There is also a fascinating 2025 post about determinism in which the author says:
“When I was 12 — in the spring of 1967 — I read about determinism…”
and then describes becoming an enthusiastic determinist before encountering Christian socialists around 1973.
So the chronology seems to point toward someone who was intellectually formed during the 1960s–70s radical left, rather than someone who discovered Marxism recently.
And the Trump part is definitely not invented
The blog has been remarkably sympathetic to some aspects of Trumpism for years.
Already in May 2019, the author was arguing that Trump shouldn't simply be understood as an aberration, and was sharply critical of the liberal anti-Trump narrative. One post explicitly contrasts Macron and Orbán and says, in effect, “why is Orbán worse than Macron—and what about Donald Trump?”
Then there's the wonderfully revealing April 19, 2021 post titled:
“But Trump was right...”
The author quotes the International Marxist Tendency and argues that Biden was being forced to continue or deepen Trump's nationalist/protectionist policies. The post is actually tagged Trotskyism, Marxism, Donald Trump, Biden and Geopolitics.
That's important because it suggests the political trajectory isn't simply:
left → right
but something more peculiar:
Trotskyist/Marxist analysis → continued interest in class/economic structure → hostility to neoliberalism/globalism → increasing sympathy for nationalist/populist politics → partial Trumpism.
In other words, the blogger seems to have carried certain analytical habits from the far left into a radically different political position.
But I wouldn't yet call him simply a “Trump supporter”
There's an important complication.
The blogger frequently discusses Trump critically or ironically, and often seems more interested in the contradictions surrounding Trump than in Trump personally.
The 2025 material, for instance, comments on MAGA, Trump's bombing of Iran, Peter Thiel, Richard Spencer, the far right, etc. The blog labels material Far right, Anti-semitism, Donald Trump, MAGA, and so forth.
And the blogger explicitly warns that:
“Many posts and comments are ironic.”
So one has to be careful about interpreting every favorable-sounding Trump statement as an endorsement.
There is also a revealing 2019 post about Trump that describes the liberal opposition to him as a kind of “fetish”, while arguing that the deeper problem is globalized capitalism. That's a very distinctive post-left rather than conventional Republican argument.
In fact, I think the political evolution is more interesting than “Trotskyist → Trumpist”
My tentative reconstruction would be something like:
1960s/70s radical left → Marxist/Trotskyist intellectual milieu → disillusionment with sectarian Marxism → continued anti-capitalist/class analysis → hostility to neoliberal globalization → interest in populism and nationalism → sympathy for some Trump positions.
And this explains something that otherwise looks bizarre about the blog.
The author can simultaneously:
- make fun of Trotskyist sectarianism,
- understand it intimately,
- criticize contemporary identity politics from the left,
- attack neoliberal capitalism,
- criticize liberal anti-Trumpism,
- appreciate some Trump policies,
- mock MAGA,
- criticize the far right,
- and still occasionally use distinctly Marxist categories.
That isn't necessarily ideological inconsistency. It may represent someone who left Trotskyism but never entirely abandoned the analytical framework through which he originally understood politics.
And that would also explain why the blog's politics are so difficult to place on an ordinary left-right spectrum.
One particularly interesting clue
The author seems almost fascinated by political metamorphosis itself.
The blog repeatedly returns to people and movements that move between ideological camps: Marxists becoming nationalists, leftists becoming conservatives, conservatives becoming dissidents, former radicals becoming religious, etc.
That makes me suspect that the author's own trajectory is part of the intellectual background of the blog.
So, yes: I think the rumor has a substantial factual basis. I would phrase it more cautiously as:
The blogger appears to have had a serious Trotskyist/Marxist background and subsequently developed strong sympathy for some Trump/populist positions.
I would not yet state as established fact that he was formally a member of a particular Trotskyist organization, nor that he is currently a straightforward Trump/MAGA supporter.
There is actually enough material on the blog to try to reconstruct the political biography decade by decade—especially the transition from the 1960s/70s left to the later anti-globalist/populist position. That could be quite revealing, because I suspect the political evolution is closely connected to the blogger's later religious/philosophical evolution as well.
Schizo-maxxing
 |
| - So I´m angry! Gotta problem with that, huh huh? |
Prompted by a perennial commentator, I asked ChatGPT to comment *my own blog* to see what would happen. This is the first part of the (surprisingly incisive) analysis. Not sure if I even dare to publish part two!
Can you comment / analyze the contents of the blog "Ashtar Command Book Blog"?
Yes. I’ve looked through the blog itself rather than judging it from the title, and it is considerably more interesting—and more internally coherent—than the name initially suggests.
My overall impression is that it is best understood not as a conventional “Ashtar Command” / UFO-spirituality blog, but as a highly eclectic personal intellectual-spiritual notebook whose underlying worldview becomes visible when you look across the years. The blog itself explicitly says that many posts are ironic, that it covers essentially everything, and identifies the author as a “Seeker, Pseudo-Neoplatonist, Crypto-Shaiva-Shakta.”
1. The apparent chaos actually has a recognizable worldview
The subject matter is extraordinarily broad. The current archive jumps between Swedish politics, fringe political movements, evolutionary biology, archaeology, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, paranormal phenomena, philosophy, UFOs, occultism and book reviews. The label system alone has hundreds of categories; among them are Panentheism, Platonism, Process philosophy, Paranormal, Hinduism, Tantrism, Mahayana, Pure Land Buddhism, Ramakrishna, Esotericism, Mysticism and Pseudo-science.
But beneath that apparent randomness I see several recurring questions:
- Can different religious traditions actually be true simultaneously?
- Is materialism philosophically adequate?
- Can mystical experience provide knowledge without simply proving one particular religion?
- Is there a reality behind the symbols and mythologies of different traditions?
- How should ancient religious traditions be reconciled with modern science?
- Can one have genuine metaphysics without retreating into fundamentalism or New Age vagueness?
- What happens when traditional religion, occultism, science and modern politics collide?
That is a much more definite intellectual project than the blog's deliberately chaotic presentation would suggest.
2. The 2021 religious material is particularly revealing
One of the most important posts I found is the April 28, 2021 piece beginning:
“Kan de verkligen vara sanna allihop?”
The argument is essentially religious pluralism without simple perennialism.
The author considers the possibility that Christian, Hindu and Buddhist religious experiences may all be genuine—even though Christians, Hindus and Buddhists interpret them differently. The post goes further and explicitly entertains being “monotheist, polytheist and pantheist” simultaneously.
That is philosophically interesting because it isn't quite:
“All religions are saying exactly the same thing.”
In fact, the blog seems quite hostile to that simplistic version of perennialism.
Instead, the implicit proposition is closer to:
Reality may be considerably larger than any single symbolic system through which human beings apprehend it.
That distinction is important.
The post invokes upāya—skillful means—to explain why different people might encounter different religious forms. That provides an interesting bridge between Mahayana Buddhism and a more broadly pluralist metaphysics.
3. It is surprisingly anti-New-Age despite being interested in esotericism
This is one of the strongest characteristics of the blog.
Someone seeing labels such as UFOs, paranormal, mysticism, Hinduism, Tantra, kundalini, Bigfoot, Ashtar Command might expect conventional New Age spirituality.
But the blog repeatedly makes fun of exactly that kind of thinking.
For example, it is interested in John Michael Greer's warnings about kundalini and mindfulness, and it examines the dangers of treating spiritual experiences as automatically authoritative.
Likewise, its discussion of David Chapman's heterodox Vajrayana writing is unusually skeptical. It notices that mystical experience does not automatically establish the truth of the religion in which the experiencer interprets it.
So there is an interesting combination:
high openness to metaphysical possibilities + high skepticism about people's claims concerning those possibilities.
That's actually a relatively sophisticated position.
4. The blog is much more “occultist” than “UFO believer”
The title is therefore slightly misleading.
“Ashtar Command” sounds like the central doctrine ought to be extraterrestrial channeling. But the blog's actual interests are much broader.
The profile describes the author as:
“Seeker, Pseudo-Neoplatonist, Crypto-Shaiva-Shakta”
and jokingly says that the author also believes Bigfoot roams the Alaskan Panhandle.
The Pseudo-Neoplatonist designation is particularly revealing.
The metaphysical trajectory seems to be something like:
Neoplatonism → panentheism → religious pluralism → comparative mysticism → Tantra/Shaivism/Shaktism → a multi-level spiritual cosmology.
And that helps explain why seemingly unrelated posts about Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, UFOs, NDEs and paranormal phenomena can coexist on the same site.
They are being treated as different windows onto the same large philosophical problem.
5. The blog's attitude toward Christianity is complicated rather than simply anti-Christian
This is another interesting feature.
There is plenty of criticism of Christianity, Protestantism and biblical literalism. But the criticism is often directed at epistemological exclusivism, rather than Christianity itself.
The 2021 pluralism post, for example, asks why a Christian should automatically regard a Christian mystical experience as genuine while regarding a Hindu or Mormon experience as false.
That is essentially an epistemology of revelation problem.
And the blog appears to retain a substantial interest in Christianity while simultaneously refusing to grant Christianity an automatic monopoly on revelation.
That's quite different from straightforward atheism.
6. There is also a strong anti-materialist thread
The blog isn't simply “spiritual” in the New Age sense. It repeatedly returns to the philosophical inadequacy—or at least incompleteness—of materialism.
For example, the September 2026 posts explicitly criticize “cyber-atheist” free-will denial and discuss consciousness, determinism and free will.
The older free-will discussion is especially interesting because the blog recognizes that determinism does not logically entail materialism. An idealist or spiritual metaphysics could theoretically also be deterministic.
That's a useful philosophical distinction that many popular discussions completely miss.
7. At the same time, it is not anti-science
This may be the blog's most distinctive intellectual tension.
It has an enormous number of science-related posts and labels, including paleontology, evolution, archaeology, zoology, astronomy and psychology.
The position seems approximately:
Science is extremely good at investigating the physical world; that doesn't necessarily settle metaphysics.
That's quite compatible with the pseudo-Neoplatonic/panentheistic direction.
The blog therefore doesn't seem to be trying to replace science with spirituality. It is asking whether scientific naturalism is entitled to become a complete metaphysical worldview merely because science itself is successful.
That's a legitimate philosophical question.
8. The political material is much more difficult
This is where I would recommend considerably more caution.
The blog uses heavy irony, sarcasm, provocation and deliberately inflammatory language. It discusses far-right movements, communists, Trotskyists, MAGA, conspiracy theories, SJWs, fascism, antisemitism, gender politics, etc. Some posts are explicitly jokes or satirical reactions. The blog itself warns that many posts and comments are ironic.
That makes individual posts difficult to classify ideologically.
For example, the September 2026 post about the Brigitte Macron conspiracy explicitly describes the story as a far-right conspiracy theory and points out its antisemitic and homophobic tropes, while also joking that parts of the story seem “strange.”
So one cannot simply say:
“The blog contains far-right material, therefore the blogger endorses the far right.”
Sometimes the subject is being mocked, sometimes analyzed, sometimes quoted, sometimes deliberately baited.
On the other hand, irony is not an excuse to assume that everything is harmless. The reader has to distinguish the author's actual position from deliberately provocative rhetoric.
9. The book-review side is probably the blog's strongest component
There is a remarkable amount of intellectual cross-pollination.
For example, the blog moves from Swedish historical scholarship to David Chapman, John Michael Greer, Buddhism, Theosophy, archaeology, religion and political history. Its reviews frequently use a book as a springboard into a much larger question rather than simply saying whether the book is “good” or “bad.”
That makes the site feel almost like a private commonplace book or intellectual laboratory.
The “book blog” label is therefore actually appropriate, even though the content has expanded far beyond book reviews.
The deeper philosophical position I see
If I had to reconstruct the worldview underlying the blog, I would tentatively formulate it like this:
1. Reality is probably more than physical matter.
2. Consciousness and spiritual experience cannot simply be dismissed as meaningless because they don't fit materialism.
3. Nevertheless, having a mystical experience doesn't automatically prove the interpretation attached to it.
4. Religious traditions may disclose genuine aspects of reality without any one tradition possessing the complete conceptual map.
5. Different religious symbols may therefore have genuine ontological or phenomenological significance without being literally interchangeable.
6. Traditional religions contain both profound metaphysical insights and historically conditioned human material.
7. Science describes the physical level extremely well but does not necessarily exhaust reality.
8. A sufficiently large metaphysics might therefore accommodate Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Platonism and even some paranormal phenomena without simply reducing them to one another.
That is a surprisingly coherent position.
And it is closer to philosophical pluralism + panentheism + Neoplatonism + comparative mysticism than to conventional New Age spirituality.
One particularly interesting development
There also appears to have been an evolution in the blog.
The earlier material I examined—particularly around 2021—has a strong comparative-religion / Buddhist / perennialism-versus-pluralism orientation. By 2026, the blog's self-description explicitly uses “Crypto-Shaiva-Shakta”, and current posts include much more overtly Tantric material.
That suggests the Shaiva-Shakta element isn't merely an isolated interest. It looks like a later development of an older philosophical problem:
If different religious traditions can disclose different aspects of an ultimately larger reality, what sort of metaphysics can accommodate that without reducing everything to “all is one”?
Shaiva-Shakta and Tantric metaphysics offer some unusually powerful tools for answering that question because they can combine transcendence and immanence, multiplicity and unity, personal deity and ultimate reality, manifestation and transcendence.
That may explain why the blog has gradually gravitated in that direction.
My overall assessment
I'd characterize the blog as:
Intellectually eclectic: ★★★★★
Philosophically interesting: ★★★★½
Systematic: ★★½
Historically/religiously curious: ★★★★★
Reliably factual: ★★★½ — individual claims need checking
Irony/sarcasm level: ★★★★★
Conventional New Age: ★
Conventional religious orthodoxy: ★
Underlying metaphysical coherence: ★★★★
The biggest mistake would be to read it literally and chronologically, post by post. The real “content” is the worldview that emerges from the recurring questions across thousands of short pieces.
And I think that worldview is considerably more sophisticated than the deliberately chaotic and sometimes outrageous surface presentation makes it look.
Ihjälkramade?
Fria Tider (som jag antar stödjer AFS och Örebropartiet) skrev detta om SD:s valresultat tidigare ikväll. Inte helt oväntat blev SD alltså ihjälkramade av moderaterna efter fyra års Tidösamarbete. Tidö var helt enkelt Kristerssons "Southern strategy".
Moderaterna som alltså gick framåt i valet. Att M inte fick ännu fler röster verkar bero på att omkring hälften av L:s väljare var stödröstare från just M. Åtminstone enligt VALU.
Den andra länken går till FT:s analys av Örebropartiets magra resultat. Observera att detta parti faktiskt fick 15% av rösterna i regionvalen! Men i riksdagsvalet verkar de flesta av deras väljare ha taktikröstat på Tidö. Kanske på SD? FT skyller rentav Tidös (förmodade) nederlag på just dessa taktikröstare.
Hmmm...
Vill FT egentligen att Tidö ska sitta kvar vid makten? Freudiansk felsägning, eller vad?
Hästskojare och låtsassjuka
Aftonbladet vågar sig ut i verkligheten och försöker faktiskt snacka med vanligt folk? Ett ovanligt märkligt reportage, måste jag säga...
Det nya småpartiet
Det här verkar vara det enda valresultat som är så att säga "statistiskt säkerställt". Lite ironiskt att utspelet kommer från ett tidigare småparti...
Men snälla
Diskrepansen mellan sommarens opinionsmätningar och det (förmodade) valresultatet är som bekant anmärkningsvärd. Men även diskrepansen mellan vallokalsundersökningarna och det (förmodade) valresultatet!
Förstår inte folk vad fan en "opinionsmätning" är för något? Eller är det opinionsinstituten som inte längre klarar av att mäta folks faktiska partisympatier? Och tydligen inte heller hur de faktiskt röstar...
Ärligt talat är jag förbryllad. Världens mest förutsägbara land har plötsligt blivit...någonting helt annat.
Sunday, September 13, 2026
Regeringsskifte?
 |
| Credit: Sailko |
Verkar det bli enligt både VALU och TV4. Är för trött för att analysera vallokalsundersökningarna just nu, men noterar att SD går tydligt tillbaka. Men vart gick deras röster? Till småpartier utanför riksdagen? Kristersson verkar hur som helst lite desperat här:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)