True Bronze Age mindset

Sun King Macron must embrace heritage of Vercingetorix, send Foreign Legion to Amazon, liberate traditionalist Yanomamö tribe from clutches of evil modernist Bolsonaro! CITIES, not forests, MUST BURN! 

Presidenten DN störtade

Titta riktigt noga på den här bilden, Wolodarski, om du kan slita dig från Venedig-festivalen, det här var presidenten du störtade. Du får stå ditt kast, din jävel, och sedan kan du ju fråga ditt nya förkläde och vänsteralibi Henrik Brandao Jönsson vad han *egentligen* anser om FARC och Maduro, det kan ju bli intressant... 

Jag hoppas du inte käkar biff på tåget, förresten!

Äntligen!

Äntligen brinner skiten ner, vem fan behöver en stor jävla urskog befolkad av vrålapor och kannibaler, bränn ner skiten säger jag, jag vill käka biff och ingen jävla 16-årig militant vegan eller fransk skitpresident ska få hindra mig, vill jag käka biff hellre än camembert eller snigel så är det väl min ensak och förbaskade mänskliga rättighet, man är väl ingen jävla vrålapa heller.

Och så vill jag straffa DN för deras stöd till statskuppen mot Dilma Rousseff. *Nu* kommer de och klagar på Bolsonaro. Nix, Wolodarski, det funkar inte så. 

He owns you now, baby. You are Bolsonaro´s bitch. 

And I´m not giving up my beef! 

Honey Badger´s War

A lot of material like the above was recently posted on YouTube, suggesting that Donald Trump´s disgraced ex-advisor Steve Bannon is back in full force. The timing cannot be a coincidence: Trump have started a virtual “trade war” against China, while the democracy protests in Hong Kong are gaining momentum. The first interview with Bannon was made last year at an “undisclosed location” somewhere in Texas, but hasn´t been released until now. The second was made recently and promotes a forthcoming film produced by Bannon attacking the Chinese-owned mobile phone company Huawei. Despite Bannon´s fall from Trump´s grace, it seems that the former national security advisor still has some allies left and wants to play a bigger role in the near future as informal chief strategist of American geopolitical moves against the Middle Kingdom.

Bannon is often portrayed as an “isolationist”, despite his constant anti-Chinese rhetoric. After watching the video clips above, I don´t think anyone can claim that again in good conscience. Rather, Bannon comes across as a strident interventionist and Cold Warrior (even including the 60´s and 70´s anti-Communist and human rights rhetoric), but against the People´s Republic of China rather than Russia (the enemy of choice of the US foreign policy establishment). He says that the United States is a Pacific power and that “going home is not an option”. Indeed, Bannon combines his right-wing populism with the anti-Chinese interventionist perspective, casting China in the role as the enemy of the American working people. Clearly, “America First” or “American nationalism” doesn´t mean what some people think it means – splendid national isolation in the City on the Hill. No, it means challenging the Chinese in “their” geopolitical space in the Pacific region, and even on the Chinese mainland itself. And while the challenge is mostly economical, Bannon doesn´t seem to rule out some kind of military action, although not in Hong Kong or the PRC proper, but certainly in the South China Sea.  

In the interview, Bannon argues that China wants to become the new hegemonic world power by combining two quite different geopolitical orientations: the Eurasian-based strategy associated with Mackinder and the sea-power strategy associated with Mahan. This is unique in great power history. He expresses strong disapproval of the Italian populist government for their pro-Chinese orientation. Is this why Salvini & Co didn´t want to have Bannon over in Italy? Bannon further mentions how China is de facto treating the South China Sea as their own territorial waters, while creating a global network of naval bases. However, Bannon believes that Chinese hegemonic ambitions have one fatal weakness: they are really based on Western, principally American, money! This reminds me of Anthony Sutton´s analysis of Stalin´s Soviet Union, according to which the Stalin regime became strong only thanks to massive American and Western aid. The United States elites are doing the same thing all over again, essentially building up an expansionist Communist power. They are doing it at the expense of the American people and the workers, essentially de-industrializing the US in the process, making millions of Americans unemployed, creating the opiate crisis, etc. Meanwhile, pundits claim that China´s upward trajectory can´t be stopped (Bannon mockingly calls this “the second law of thermodynamics”), while the U.S. is supposedly a declining power. Like Reagan took on the Soviets, Bannon believes that Trump can take on the Chinese, proving who is really global boss.

Bannon´s solution is two-fold: support for Trump against the “party of Davos” (the pro-Chinese Western globalists) and increased pressure on the Communist regime in Beijing. One action proposed is to send home all or most of the Chinese foreign students in the U.S., many of whom work in American laboratories, including sensitive weapons laboratories. Bannon regards them as a national security threat. He also wants to close down the so-called Confucius Institutes, claiming they are directly financed by the Chinese military (the PLA). In the more recent clip, Bannon proposes to simply stop American investments in China and bring the money home, while hindering Huawei and other Chinese businesses to penetrate the West. In this way, the Communist government of the PRC will simply collapse, Soviet style, and American hegemony be reasserted. While Trump isn´t ready to go quite as far yet, he *has* recently tweeted threats to the same effect, which may explain why Steve “Darth Vader” Bannon decided to enter the fray just now. What will happen if or when the PLA attacks Hong Kong is, shall we say, an interesting question!

Three other reflections. First, it´s interesting to note that Bannon sees China rather than Russia as the main enemy. The usual line in DC is that Russia is enemy number one, while various adventurist think tanks want the West to take on both the PRC and Russia at once (while also bombing the shit out of the Muslims). Second, the South China Sea shows the problems with the strategy of balancing the great powers – my favored “strategy” (see my review of Huntington´s book “The Clash of Civilizations”). Since the South China Sea is vital for international trade, it´s difficult to see how it can ever become part of an internationally recognized Sinosphere. But that, of course, means that “balance” is impossible. Third, note the implicitly Bonapartist idea of President Trump ordering U.S. private businesses to stop investing in China, an authority Bannon believes the president actually has. An imperial-populist presidency attacking powerful private corporations? I suppose we live in interesting times… 

The unknown nebula strikes again

A known nebula 

SPOILER WARNING! CONTAINS HUGE SPOILERS!

“Star Trek Beyond” (2016) is the third neo-Star Trek film, the two previous being “Star Trek” (2009) and “Star Trek Into Darkness” (2013). The actors try their best to mimic the old crew of the original TV series, and succeed to a great extent - it´s actually quite funny! “Bones” and his hard boiled exchanges with Mr Spock are particularly convincing. Perhaps inevitably, “Captain Kirk” is less convincing, but it must be difficult to star one of the most famous fictitious space ship captains in galactic history.

The plot is (frankly) basic bitch, with all the usual sci fi tropes we love to hate: the unknown nebula which makes communication with Star Fleet impossible, the hostile aliens hiding (surprise) inside the nebula, and the unredeemable mad scientist. More typical for Star Trek is the peacenik UN-style rhetoric, and the constant destructions and recreations of the starship Enterprise. While the franchise is “liberal”, I suppose it could shock a few people that the Russians are on *our* side in this particular intergalactic confrontation. But then, “Star Trek Beyond” was made before the Russian narrative took over the chattering classes in true nano-probe fashion.

The plot revolves around an attempt by a mysterious alien civilization to attack the Federation base “Yorktown” with a highly advanced super-weapon. The aliens need an ancient artifact stashed onboard the Enterprise to rebuild the bio-weapon and hence complete their nefarious designs of conquest and fascistic-vitalistic militarism (their leader Krall sounds like a blend of Heraclitus and a Klingon). They also need the crewmembers themselves – Krall rejuvenates himself by killing other sentient beings and harvesting the electric energy of their dying bodies. Think the revenge of Frankenstein´s monster or something to that effect. Several major plot holes later, Kirk and a marooned female alien with a penchant for kickboxing attack Krall´s compound and succeeds in rescuing most of the crew. The twist of the story is that Krall isn´t really an alien at all. He is actually a former Star Fleet captain, real name Edison, who went missing beyond the Nebula and turned mad in the belief that the Federation had abandoned him. Edison discovered the technology of a vanished alien race and used it to stay alive – which, of course, turned *him* into an alien look alike.

While most of “Star Trek Beyond” is vintage Star Trek, it does contain nods to other franchises. Or is just me seeing things? Star Wars, Babylon 5, Tomorrowland, Alien…maybe it *is* difficult to make an original scy fy flick! Still, “Beyond” gets the gold star for being the only known production in existence (this side of the Unknown Nebula) which contains references to both “Lord of the Rings” and the Beastie Boys!

Three stars. Live long and prosper.

The monofuture just cracked

Finally, some good news...unfortunately, only in Swedish! Also a positive example of the Greta Thunberg effect. Maybe it *is* a good thing that she hooked with the Grimaldis of Monte Carlo and went on that little leisure cruise across the Atlantic? 

An article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter mentions sailing ships, Flettner rotors and unmanned dirigibles (sic) as possible solutions to our transportation problems in a fossil-free future. The dirigible stuff sounds sci fi, but the others are interesting (unless the Flettner rotor needs some exotic mineral from North Korea to work properly). 

It seems the "monofuture" just cracked. 

Or maybe not, since DN is the fickle organ of the equally fickle privileged middle classes of globalist-liberal persuasion, so I wouldn´t be surprised if these guys turn coat again next week in favor of Elon Musk´s electric cars, Elon Musk´s plans to nuke Mars, Elon Musk´s cold fusion, or whatever gadget Elon Musk claims to have invented this week!

Maybe somebody should tell Greta to sail across the Pacific, too...

Segelbåtar och zeppelinare löser klimatkrisen

Elon Musk goes Full Posadismo

Is Elon Musk a secret Posadist? I mean, he wants to nuke Mars again... :D

I¨m a hard coal miner, ANTHRACITE

Next year´s POTUS election will be even more crazy than 2016. Just watch! 

Aftonbladets mest debila inlägg någonsin

Den här tänker jag länka till en gång om året fem år framåt...på första april. Det är alltså detta som kallas "officiell optimism".

Vi går mot ett nytt 1989

Why electric cars can´t save the world

Another illusion crushed. Sorry...

Why we can´t possibly switch everyone to electric cars

Donald Trumps arktiska triumf

Nej, Donald Trump var inte galen när han nyligen ville köpa loss hela Grönland från Danmark. Läs detta (skrivet innan Trump-historien) och begrunda... 

Kampen om Arktis ökar i klimatförändringens spår

Here we go again

Trump är tydligen krigshetsare den här veckan. Åtminstone i Aftonbladet. Nästa vecka blir han väl rysk agent igen, kanske efter ett fredsinitiativ? 

Det blir inte lätt att sova i natt

Are the New York Times spreading a conspiracy theory?

The New York Times claim that Russian reporters working in Sweden have paid local youth in immigrant areas to attack the police, burn cars, etc. Then they report about "problems in Sweden". Alt-news site Nyheter Idag (also attacked by NYT) has sensationally gotten an interview with Thomas Mattsson, former editor in chief of Expressen (a major newspaper). Mattsson suspects that NYT may be spreading an urban legend. 

Both Expressen and Aftonbladet (another major newspaper) have been accused of exactly the same thing - paying local youth to start riots for publicity reasons. Now, the Swedish reporters who pay local hooligans have morphed into Russian ones! However, Mattsson also says that NYT are "in general" a very good source, etc, presumably to cover all his bases...

Unfortunately, the article is only available in Swedish.

Criticism of the New York Times

Rudy on the Epstein case

Everyone is literally laughing at the claim that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. I was going to link to some of those clips, but they have become so many that it feels pointless! Besides, you probably seen them already. Here´s a four day old clip featuring Rudy Giuliani questioning the semi-official version. And oh, isn´t it funny that the same news media which claims that everyone from Trump to obscure alt-right Twitter accounts are part of a Russian conspiracy, so vehemently denies conspiracy in *this* case? It´s almost as if some kind of conspiracy is being hatched here... 

The Donald´s dangerous idea

Donald Trump wants to buy Greenland. Or so fake news media tells us. 

Well, why not? Sheriff, er, president Truman tried the same thing, in 1917 the Danes *did* sell the Virgin Islands to the US, and in 18-hundred-something the Russians (!) sold Alaska.

Besides, this shows that Il Donaldo *does* believe in climate change, after all. Maybe he has secretly been listening to Greta and the Grimaldis lately?

The only possible reason why Amerika would want Greenland is all the coal, oil and gold which simply *must* be down there, once the ice starts melting...

Let´s just hope Orange Man also has an evacuation plan ready for New York City, DC and virtually the entire East Coast once that ice starts melting and sea levels will rise! 

A cup of mead

”Sveriges kyrkohistoria” is a multi-volume work in Swedish. The topic dealt with is Swedish Church history, but “normal” history interferes essentially all the time. This volume is subtitled “Reformationstid”. It deals with the most interesting period in Swedish Church history, the 16^th century, when the Church of Sweden was transformed from a Roman Catholic Church province to an independent confessional Lutheran Church.

The Protestant Reformation in our northern lands wasn´t a straightforward affair and took about 80 years to complete! One reason is that the Reformation took place simultaneously with the transition from a relatively decentralized medieval polity to a strongly centralized monarchy with absolutist tendencies. Add to this the ambition of the Swedish ruling class to turn the small country into a European great power. This meant heavier tax burdens and a military draft for the peasants. The Church of Sweden supported the centralizing tendencies of the monarchy, which in turn used Lutheranism as a political tool. The peasants often identified the Reformation with the state, and hence wanted to remain Catholic (or at least keep all the old traditions associated with medieval Catholicism intact). The first Lutheran king of Sweden, Gustav Vasa, systematically confiscated Church property, including valuables made of gold, silver or expensive textiles. These had often been paid for by the tithes of the local peasantry, which therefore saw the confiscations as an attack against the common people. The largest peasant uprising against Gustav Vasa, the so-called Dackefejden led by Nils Dacke from Småland, had strong Catholic overtones and was even promised military aid by Catholic princes in Germany (in the end, none materialized). On the other hand, Catholicism also had a certain degree of support among the high nobility. This became especially obvious during the reign of Sigismund, who as simultaneous king of Poland actually was a Catholic. The book says that it probably wasn´t until around 1600 that the Swedish peasants had become used to the new Lutheran order (and I suspect “superstitious” medieval traditions survived even then).

The example of Sigismund also shows another factor complicating the course of the Reformation: Swedish foreign policy. Both Gustav Vasa and his successors had to navigate an increasingly perilous international situation in which religious affiliation was one – but only one – factor deciding who was allied to whom. Vasa was mostly cautious and pragmatic in his dealings with foreign powers, and often impeded Lutheran Church reforms in Sweden if he felt that a too militant posture would threaten whatever diplomatic maneuvers he was involved with at the time. It´s interesting to note that one of Vasa´s perennial enemies, Danish king (later ex-king) Christian II, switched religious affiliation several times. Two Catholic powers, Poland and the state of the Teutonic Knights, were “natural” allies of Sweden (both were anti-Russian), while at least one Lutheran power, Denmark, was a natural enemy. I get the impression that Gustav Vasa supported the Reformation mostly because it gave him an opportunity to expand royal power and strengthen the state. Economic issues also played a role, since king Gustav believed that the Catholic prohibition to work on Sundays and various holy days inhibited the productivity of the peasantry (and, I suppose, everyone else). His sons Erik XIV, Johan III and Karl IX, by contrast, seem to have been more genuinely interested in theological issues. Erik XIV and Karl IX were often accused of Calvinistic tendencies by the orthodox Lutheran clergy, while Johan III veered towards Catholicism. All insisted that the king should have the last say in Church matters, both in terms of creedal statements and clerical appointments.

Some situations described in the book are absurd, as when Erik XIV, his advisors and the bishops discussed an acute crisis during the “Seven Year War” against Denmark: the Danish blockade had made wine scarce, a problem since the Church of Sweden celebrated the Eucharist with wine given to the laymen and insisted that all masses must be Eucharistic. The lack of wine gave the Philippists (moderate Lutherans) and Calvinists a welcome opportunity to argue their view of Holy Communion, according to which the wine might just as well be replaced by water, mead or cherry juice. (Celebrating communion with mead does have a certain intrinsic appeal.) The orthodox Lutherans refused, and argued that wine simply must be used cuz Bible, period. Erik XIV veered towards the Philippists and Calvinists, but in the end a compromise solution was reached: it was allowed to mix water with wine, as long as it still tasted like wine! King Erik subsequently managed to procure a large quantity of real wine from Germany, thereby mooting the whole issue…at least for the time being.

For making my head spin, I give “Sveriges Kyrkohistoria. Band 3: Reformationstid” five stars out of five!

Here be Bigfeet

[Originally posted Nov 24, 2018. Reposted here due to technical problems with the YouTube clip at the old location.] 

I just found this interesting YouTube clip, featuring Mattsquatch (real name unknown) lecturing about various types of Bigfoot-like creatures seen across the United States. 

Mattsquatch has tried to bring some sense and order into this bewildering topic, and draws the conclusion that there are at least 10 different types of Bigfeet out there. The “classical” type is known from the US states on the West Coast. This is the type seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film, and could be likened to a gorilla (or even to a huge upright-walking bear). In the South, a more aggressive and chimpanzee-like type is more common. The Florida Skunk Ape resembles an orangutan. Yet another form is the “human giant” or “relict hominid”, similar to the gorilla-like type from the West Coast but with a more human face. 

Finally, there are a number of more unusual creatures, including the Grass Man (which looks like a normal human in feral condition and only exists in Ohio), the Mountain Giant (with Alaska as a hotspot), the Devil Monkey and the extremely rare Little People. Mattsquatch also mentions a number of virtual monsters, who are said to attack and eat people. 

In the last part of his lecture, he talks about the Dogman, which is not a Bigfoot sensu stricto, but rather resembles an East European werewolf. He claims that these creatures, known as “Lobos” (Spanish for wolves), are often seen by US border patrols and Mexican migrants! 

Some of Matt´s private speculations are truly “out there” (ahem, the Nephilim? Aliens? Reptoids?), but I found the more ethnographic part of his lecture intriguing. Why would people in one part of the States be seeing a rough replica of the gorilla, while those in another part see a rough replica of the chimp or orang? If these observations go back to pre-colonial times, TV documentaries or sensational tabloid articles about African or Asian great apes can´t explain the similarities… 

All observations of hairy hominids are usually lumped together under the “Bigfoot” designation (“Finding Bigfoot” even considers the Jersey Devil or the Beast of Bray Road to be sasquatches), but just like with UFOs, we could really be dealing with many different types of creatures or phenomena.

A new mission for Greta?

When Greta Thunberg is done crossing the Atlantic on a small sail boat in the middle of hurricane season, I think she should go to Canada and try to catch one of these... 

Waheela

People believe the strangest things...

Yes, some people believe even in this...

Planet of the Apes the road movie

Most people have seen the classic science fiction flick “Planet of the Apes” from 1968, featuring Charlton Heston. The entire franchise includes additional films, but also two TV series (one of them animated). This is the second episode of the “Planet of the Apes” series from 1974. The series was apparently cancelled after just 14 episodes due to low ratings – the irony!

Unfortunately, only the second episode (“The Gladiators”) is ripped on YouTube, and I haven´t seen the others. The series seems to be made in the typical “road movie” style, with the main characters crisscrossing America, experiencing various disconnected situations, and being constantly chased (but never quite apprehended) by the bad guys. 

The plot is set about 30 years after the events in the first film, when another group of astronauts cross the time barrier and find themselves on a future Earth ruled by smart apes, with humans in subordinate roles. (In the second film, Charlton Heston destroys Earth by a nuclear explosion, but I doubt anyone cares about this continuity error.) 

As usual, the chimpanzees are clever scientists and philosophers, while the gorillas are soldiers and generals. No orangs are featured in “The Gladiators”. A difference with the 1968 film is that the humans can speak and live in villages rather than in the wilderness. The villages are controlled by chimp prefects and gorilla guards, while the humans are relatively primitive farmers. No high technology seems to exist. One of the chimpanzees is baffled by a human-made golf club found during excavations!

The two surviving astronauts are aided by a renegade chimp scientist, and experience various adventures in a village somewhere in California, where the prefect organizes annual gladiator games to keep the humans happy. When one of the astronauts is forced to fight in the games but (surprise) refuses to kill his beaten opponent, pandemonium breaks loose! 

The message of the episode is strongly pacifist, and although the criticism is directed at “war” in general and implicitly at nuclear war, I´m sure the viewers had a very concrete war in mind at the time of airing. Yes, the Vietnam War obviously, and it´s interesting to note that the son of the main gladiator is a pacifist and by implication therefore a draft dodger…

Not the most interesting production around, but if you like 1970´s TV series, this might be worth a sneak peak or two.

PS. On YouTube, “The Gladiators” have been divided into two clips. You can easily find the second one if you start watching the first. 

Time of the chimps

Some interesting information on the Japanese version of "Planet of the Apes". Originally a TV series, called "Saru no Gundan", it was cut down and remade into a single (and very confusing) American film titled "Time of the Apes", apparently considered a vintage turkey. The year was 1987.

In the TV series, the apes have a high technological civilization (including robots), but since the production is Japanese, ape ninjas (!) have been included as a plot element. Interestingly, the chimpanzees are (correctly) depicted as more aggressive than the gorillas, while the roles were reversed in the American version. The chimps even stage a bloody military coup!

Not sure where to actually procure this hilarious piece of Nipponiana, but the clip is alright as a preview... 

A bear named Kodiak

I´m sure this is perfectly normal... 

Bonobo: The Amazon Ape?

An anti-feminist site links to this old article from 2007, published in The New Yorker magazine. The article, however, does not state that bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) are patriarchal. It says they are violent. ***The female bonobos gang up on and attack the males, perhaps even killing them.*** Sure, this may shock those who believe that bonobos are perfectly peaceful. I admit I once believed that myself (see my reviews of bonobo-related books on this blog). However, I fail to see how Amazon Apes disprove the women´s liberation movement... 

"Swingers", article on bonobos from The New Yorker

Well, at least he solved the theodicy problem

A somewhat peculiar YouTube clip from somebody calling himself "Logical Hindu". But here, he sounds almost like an atheist...unless he is trolling his followers, who don´t know what to think (see discussion thread below the clip).

Of course, what he is describing isn´t "God". It´s some kind of fallen world spirit personified as an alien from a sci fi tale... 

Jeffrey Epstein is dead

Move along, nothing to see... 

A left-liberal facing the apocalypse

”Scener ur hjärtat” is a book by Malena Ernman and Svante Thunberg, published in 2018. The authors happen to be Greta Thunberg´s parents. Both Greta and her sister Beata are prominently featured in the book, a book the anti-Greta crowd loves to hate, since it gives ample opportunity to freak-shame the entire family. I happen to be critical of many aspects of the Greta Thunberg phenomenon myself, but it *is* richly ironic that the same people who accuse Swedish schools of being left-liberal indoctrination camps are telling Greta to stop her climate strike and…go back to school! Even apart from that little detail that anthropogenic global warming is, well, real or something…

The book, which I assume is largely written by Ernman (she is the “I” of the narrative), feels somewhat “stream of consciousness” and is therefore difficult to review. It deals primarily with two issues: autism and other forms of neuro-developmental diagnoses, and the global climate crisis. Ernman has a diagnosis herself: ADHD, which in her case took the form of being a specially gifted child (music and opera), but also dysfunctionally shy and uninterested in social intercourse. Beata also has ADHD, or perhaps misophonia, while Greta is diagnosed with Asperger´s syndrome. She used to have OCD, selective mutism and eating disorders. At the same time, it´s obvious that both daughters are smarter than average, Greta in particular coming across as “the little professor”. A large portion of the narrative deals with the family´s attempts to cope with their disorders, and a large part of *that* seems to be handling bullying and the incomprehension of other people, which includes teachers and bureaucrats. These parts of the book make for painful reading. Since Greta is only 16 years old, the situations described presumably took place around 2012 or so. It was shocking to learn that many Swedish schools were (are?) still stuck in the past, with freak-shaming considered perfectly normal. (I heard from another person that perhaps this is changing now, at least in some school districts.)

Malena Ernman is a high-profile climate activist, and has used her celebrity status as a pop and opera singer to promote the cause against global warming. She is very radical on the issue, quoting climate scientists who believe that *all* carbon emissions must be stopped for 10 or 15 years for the Earth to have a chance. She seems to believe in the Venus scenario, according to which Earth will turn into a new version of Venus unless something is done now. An interesting detail is that Ernman doesn´t trust the politicians or the media to do much, or anything at all, while the campaign of her daughter Greta aims to shame the politicians into taking action and has had great traction with the media. Most of this happened after the book was published. Personally, I think the establishment will disavow Greta the moment she turns 18 and isn´t a child prodigy anymore (and therefore not photogenic enough to sell subscriptions). That, and the electric car lobby! Ernman seems to understand that modern industrial civilization is essentially screwed without fossil fuels – she doesn´t buy into the current fad about electric cars either – and calls for sharply reduced levels of growth and consumption, both individual and collective. She doesn´t think people want to hear this message, and the perspective is therefore near-apocalyptic and depressive.

Metaphorically, Ernman sees a similarity between her own family crisis and the global climate crisis. They are both part of an underlying crisis connected to capitalism, attempts to dominate nature, patriarchy and crazy competitiveness. Interestingly, her feminism is “essentialist”, Ernman arguing that men and women really are different (her husband Svante often comes across as the “rational guy” on the block), and that part of the problem with modern society is that women are forced to act like men, since the male is the norm in a patriarchal society. This, in turn, is connected to society´s inability to cope with, let alone cure, neuro-developmental disorders. Worst off of all are girls with such diagnoses, since they are usually introverted. The ADHD norm is an outgoing and aggressive boy! After attending meetings about such topics, Ernman believes that nobody really gives a damn…

It´s obvious from “Scener ur hjärtat” that Ernman is extremely privileged, and comes from a left-liberal and Christian philanthropic background. Her parents use to hide illegal aliens in the family villa, and they seem to be on a first-name basis with Sister Marianne, the controversial Swedish nun who was also aiding illegals during the 1980´s. For some reason, Ernman never mentions Marianne by name, perhaps because the nun was disavowed by the liberals after accusations of anti-Semitism? Ernman was aiding refugees during the recent migrant crisis, and explicitly denies that it even *was* a crisis, since “Sweden” is so rich and prosperous, etc. There are two obvious problems with this scenario: not everyone in “Sweden” is as rich as Ernman, and nobody in Sweden would be rich if the entire country reverts to non-fossil fuels. Indeed, this is the most glaring contradiction in the book: Ernman´s open border policy (and other left-liberal ideas) would be the first to go in a post-carbon world, dog-eat-dog nationalism being the most logical option, and while she somehow senses the problem, she simply continues as before. Her (and Greta´s) polemic against those who see overpopulation as a problem isn´t convincing either, since the environment would collapse even faster if everyone in the Third World would get the same high living standard as Malena Ernman herself – something she actually acknowledges! I also wonder if Ernman really believes that Swedish schools will have enough resources for children with special needs, if the public sector simply collapses due to the migrant crisis and/or global warming?

Had I been an old fashioned leftist (which I was once), the line of attack against “Scener ur hjärtat” would be obvious: the liberal bourgeoisie offers no solutions to the systemic crisis, except a combination of individual purism (Greta´s refusal to eat meat or fly), classless appeals to “everyone of good will”, and utter despair…and perhaps some solar and wind. Today, I no longer believe in the Messianic role of the working class in taking up the Cause of Progress and World Revolution, so I can´t say I have any particular solutions either. However, I can say that they (whatever they are) won´t be pretty – unless some kind of truly grand project of geoengineering, bioengineering or nuclear-electrical conversion can be made to work. If not, we better chose the right tribal confederation before the next great battle of the Catalaunian Fields…

DN förnekar sig inte

Credit: SFWheelchair

DN har gjort det igen. Denna gång med råge. Dagen efter Pride tar de offentligt ställning för sado-masochism på ledarplats! OK, då vet vi vad "agendan" går ut på. Deras agenda, vill säga. Jag tänker inte länka till eländet...

Kommer att bli intressant att se hur DN lyckas förena detta med sitt försvar av burka och chador, vänta, det finns faktiskt en gemensam nämnare.

DN stödjer kvinnofientlighet oavsett väderstreck. Pedofili med effektivt samtycke nästa?

May the Sith be with you

Peace is a lie. There is only Passion.

Through Passion I gain Strength.

Through Strength I gain Power.

Through Power I gain Victory.

Through Victory my chains are Broken.

The Force shall free me.

This is the Code of the Sith from "Star Wars", also known as Qotsisajak. That word sounds Inuit to me. 

So the Sith are an Eskimo Luciferian Order? Wtf, I love the Sith now!

Ett litet tankeexperiment

Tanken att Jesus aldrig har funnits (på engelska ”mythicism” eller ”the Jesus Myth theory”) betraktas tydligen som helknäpp av de flesta etablerade akademiker inom nytestamentliga studier och liknande ämnen. Bart Ehrman är ett exempel. Observera att detta alltså är tanken att Jesus  inte var en historisk person av kött och blod (med ett romerskt folkräkningsnummer och en fast adress för skattskrivning, får man förmoda). I denna mening var Jesus en myt. Man skulle ju kunna tänka sig att Jesus på något sätt har ”existerat” ändå, kanske i någon slags andlig mening, eller i en annan dimension. Den mest akademiskt kompetente myticisten, Richard Carrier, menar att de tidigaste kristna betraktade Jesus som verklig i *denna* mening, lika verklig som t.ex. Satan (som ju inte heller är en ”historisk person” i världslig bemärkelse). 

I detta blogginlägg tänker jag så att säga agera Djävulens advokat och försvara ståndpunkten att Jesus faktiskt inte har existerat, givetvis utan att ta något som helst ansvar för det jag skriver. Jag tror nämligen att man rationellt kan försvara denna åsikt, vilket är det enda detta tankeexperiment ämnar demonstrera.

Evangelierna skrevs mellan år 70 och år 100. Om evangelierna innehåller verkliga historiska traditioner om en verklig man, Jesus av Nazareth, måste dessa traditioner givetvis ha varit kända även för Paulus. Hans epistlar anses i allmänhet ha skrivits mellan år 50 och år 60 (d.v.s. de autentiska epistlarna – bibelkritiska forskare menar att många av dem är senare förfalskningar). Så hur kommer det sig att Paulus aldrig någonsin citerar en evengelietradition om Jesus? Han citerar varken källa Q, källa M, källa L, proto-Markus, eller allt vad de där hypotetiska källorna kallas. Tvärtom: när han nämner Jesus gör han ofta uttalanden som motsäger evangeliernas, antingen implicit eller explicit. Han nämner aldrig jungfrufödseln, exempelvis. Explicit säger han att Kefas (Petrus) var den förste som såg Jesus efter uppståndelsen – enligt evangelierna var det Maria Magdalena. (Förutom korsfästelsen och uppståndelsen verkar sista måltiden vara de enda evanglieberättelser som nämns i Pauli brev.) Vad som är ännu märkligare är att Paulus aldrig citerar evangelietraditionens Jesus ens när detta skulle stärka hans position. Hans konflikt med Petrus och Jakob handlar bl.a. om ren och oren föda. Varför citerar han aldrig Jesus-orden ”det är inte det som kommer in i munnen som är orent, det är det som kommer ut ur munnen som är orent”, och så att säga få det hela överstökat? Detta är kompatibelt med tanken att dessa ”traditioner” hittades på av evanglieförfattarna flera årtionden senare och således inte existerade när Paulus skrev – det var den paulinska kyrkan som lade orden i Jesu mun retrospektivt.

Det är ju också märkligt att Paulus så hårt betonar att han inte fått evangeliet från någon människa, utan endast genom en uppenbarelse från Jesus Kristus. Det tyder på att kriteriet på en verklig apostel inte var att denne träffat en jordisk man vid namn Yehoshua, utan att han (eller hon) mottagit en viss sorts översinnliga budskap. Varför skulle Paulus annars framhålla att han knappt träffat de andra apostlarna? Om Jesus var en verklig historisk person med den dignitet han tillskrivs i evangelierna borde Paulus ha gjort tvärtom – betonat att han ständigt umgåtts med ögonvittnen till Jesu förkunnelse och verksamhet innan korsfästelsen, för att sedan ”spinna” budskapet i lämplig paulinsk riktning (vilket mycket riktigt är vad vi finner i de senare traditionerna).

Om man är bibelkritiker men ändå anser att människan Jesus har existerat, så finns det egentligen bara en trovärdig förklaring till Paulus´ märkliga tystnad. Det är att han var heretiker! Han citerade inte Jesus eftersom han inte kunde göra det. Det var de judekristna med Jakob i spetsen som hade rätt. Jakob var ju dessutom Jesu köttslige broder. Paulus´ budskap var en serie nymodigheter som inte gick att motivera annat än genom nya uppenbarelser av rent övernaturlig karaktär. (Jag antar att församlingen i Galatien också måste vara heretiker enligt detta scenario, eftersom de avkräver Paulus bevis på att han aldrig fått sitt evangelium från människor.) Det finns dock ett ganska starkt argument mot denna idé: Paulus´ motståndare citerar aldrig Jesus heller. NT innehåller som bekant en epistel som tillskrivs Jakob. Vi kan givetvis inte veta om den verkligen skrevs av honom, men den innehåller vad som med stor sannolikhet är en polemik mot Paulus (det var därför Luther långt senare ville avlägsna Jakobsbrevet från Bibeln). Det märkliga med detta brev är att det aldrig citerar Jesus, utan ständigt hänvisar till Gamla Testamentet! Men om den judekristna traditionen är den sanna och kommer från Jesus av Nazareth, borde författaren givetvis citera just Jesus av Nazareth, denne store rabbi som dessutom var Herre och Guds Son. Varför citerar inte ”Jakob” Jesus när denne säger ”jag har inte kommit för att upphäva lagen, utan för att uppfylla den”? Varför hänvisar han inte till traditionen enligt vilken Jesus frälser utifrån gärningar, inte utifrån tro? (Matt 25:31-46)

Det förefaller som om evangelietraditionen inte existerade före det att evanglierna faktiskt nedtecknades, 40 till 70 år efter Jesu passion. Detta är kompatibelt med tanken att Jesus aldrig har existerat – det enda som fanns var mer eller mindre kreativa skrifttolkningar (av GT) kombinerade med övernaturliga uppenbarelser.

Ett annat tecken som tyder på detta är att det finns en märklig tradition enligt vilken Jesus levde 100 år före Kristus! Den nämns av Epifanius (som givetvis tar kraftigt avstånd) och verkar även ha påverkat Talmud, där ”Yeshu” (som antagligen är Jesus) blir avrättad under hasmonéerna, inte av romarna. Hur kunde en tradition av detta slag ens uppstå, om ”alla” visste att Jesus blev avrättad på order av Pontius Pilatus? Kanske för att Jesu avrättning *måste* ha ägt rum antingen omkring år 30 eller omkring ett århundrade tidigare, eftersom Danielsbokens profetior om en Messias som blir dödad kan översättas på två olika sätt, så att man hamnar i just dessa tidsperioder. Det är förenligt med tanken att Jesus var en myt konstruerad på basis av GT:s profetior. Det är svårare att se hur en sådan tradition kan uppstå om Jesus var en verklig historisk person...såvida man inte antar att det fanns två Jesus eller Jesii, den ene identisk med Rättfärdighetens Lärare (Alvar Ellegårds teori!) medan den andre är ”vår” Jesus, och att båda trodde sig vara den Messias som omnämns i Danielsboken. Förvisso inte omöjligt, men antagligen omöjligt att bevisa.

Man undrar också exakt vad i evangelierna som ”måste” vara historiskt källmaterial? Ger evanglierna verkligen det intrycket? Det verkar snarare vara en salig röra av GT-anspelningar, uppenbara myter eller allegorier, karaktärer med omöjliga namn, uppenbart omöjliga situationer, historiska felaktigheter, och ständiga motsägelser evangelierna emellan. Lägg därtill mirakelberättelserna, som sekulära akademiker rimligtvis inte kan acceptera. Eftersom sekularisterna rimligtvis erkänner att det trosbaserade inslaget i evangelierna är väldigt starkt, uppstår frågan vad som är verklig historia? Ett ”kriterium” på detta som brukar användas kallas på engelska ”the Criterion of Embarassement”. Det går ut på att vissa uppgifter i evangelierna var så pinsamma för den tidiga kyrkan att de helt enkelt måste ha varit sanna, och dessutom allmänt kända, annars hade de inte nedtecknats. Ett klassiskt exempel är hur Jesus döps av Johannes Döparen. Dopet var ju till syndernas förlåtelse, men enligt kristen teologi var Jesus syndfri. Dessutom stod han högre än Johannes, så varför låta sig döpas av honom? Slutsats: att detta måste ha hänt, och att den historiske Jesus alltså var en anhängare till Johannes. Mot detta kan dock invändas följande. Evangelierna nedtecknades minst 40 år efter denna händelse och dessutom efter det judiska kriget (som ödelade stora delar av Palestina). De lästes framförallt av grekisktalande kristna utanför Palestina. Det totala antalet personer som ”kände till sanningen” måste ha varit ytterst begränsat, och dessutom kunde vanliga kristna i t.ex. Rom knappast ta sig till Jordandalen och intervjua eventuella överlevande ögonvittnen till det kontroversiella dopet... Omvänt så var det väldigt lätt att hitta på, dra ifrån och lägga till – något ju sekulära akademiker erkänner att evangelisterna faktiskt gjorde! Det är alltså betydligt troligare att den som nedtecknade historien om dopet inte tyckte att det var pinsamt – det var något senare generationer fick för sig.

Det finns tre problem till med detta kriterium.

För det första är det väldigt vanligt att människor (inte bara religiösa!) tror på ”fem omöjliga saker innan frukost”, inklusive sådant som är självmotsägande eller pinsamt för utomstående. Dynamiken inom en liten religiös grupp är sällan eller aldrig ”vad skall majoriteten säga” (eller vad ska forskare säga om 2,000 år). För det andra kan vi studera hur nya religioner som uppstått under de senaste 200 åren hanterat pinsamheter. De har praktiskt taget aldrig ”erkänt” genom att notera allmänt kända pinsamheter i sina heliga skrifter eller hagiografier. Tvärtom! Trots att vi idag kan dokumentera sanningen om nyreligiösa rörelser och deras anspråk, så är den vanligaste strategin att helt enkelt ljuga, förneka och förfalska (eller inte bry sig om vad kritikerna säger). Det går att bevisa att L Ron Hubbard ljuger om sin bakgrund inom amerikanska flottan, ja, det är ”allmänt känt” bland dem som bryr sig, men scientologerna fortsätter att förneka fakta ändå. Om de kristna hade känt sig besvärade av Johannes, hade de helt enkelt kunnat blanka historien, oavsett hur många utomstående som ansåg sig ”känna till sanningen”. För det tredje finns det inget som tyder på att judar eller hedningar blev omvända till kristendomen genom att rationellt sitta och väga olika påståendens sanningshalt eller ”pinsamhet”. Får man tro NT skedde omvändelser i allmänhet genom mirakler, retoriska predikningar eller GT-studier. Det kristna verkligen upplevde som pinsamt var att Jesus inte kom tillbaka under deras livstid, något som dock inte bevisar att Jesus verkligen sade dessa saker. Det visar bara att de urkristna hade denna föreställning om honom.

Klart slut.

Most original heresy so far

An entertaining article from the (obviously heretical) THAVMA website. 

Seriously, bro, Thelema is just another form of Christianity

Demonology of the Week (3): Monsters, monsters everywhere

Mattsquatch discusses three monstrous cryptids (or "cryptids") supposedly seen in American forests: the dog-men, true giants, and rakes. Let´s hope Matt is just trolling us here... 

Demonology of the Week (2): Beware of the Black Eye Kids

Mattsquatch seems like a relatively rational guy, but he does believe in some "fringe" stuff, including the so-called Black Eye Kids. Note the similarities to vampires and Men in Black. 

Demonology of the Week (1): Meat servitors, golems and stuff

Our favorite dark side occultist Thomas Sheridan (or, as we call him, ´Oumuamua Guy) talks about some really scary shit concerning dead people walking again. We take no overt responsibility for any of the contents of this clip! 

From YouTube´s commentary section, Marcus Reeves writes:

"Servitors and Thoughforms creation was my practice for months and I will confirm exactly what Thomas is saying. There is a natural electrical link between thought projection and objects of focus. But I will warn you that this form of sorcery has a VERY big price to pay. This is not something to mess around with. You can suffer physical disease from improper control of your energetic body. I believe my diabetic diagnosis may have been jump started by my misuse of my astral body.

As well on thoughtforms, there is a reason why the mental and physical are separate. I had my own experiences where I lost control of thoughtforms and they were showing signs of manifesting in this reality. Oddly enough at the same time I was going through an episode of absolute madness. Words can not explain what I seen and felt. If anyone is interested I suggest doing research on Tulpas and energy systems used in Indian and Chinese wellness to get a CLEAR understanding of how energy works and is represented.

The Western traditions are lacking in the energy control department because majority of what is taught is mental manifestating spiritual. Something I learned the hard way. Lastly, this plays on what I heard in another video about watching where your attention, your charge goes. There are those in the world who can drain the very essence of your being by manipulating where your attention goes."

Did "real Protestants" love Mary?

Why haven´t we been told this before? I always assumed that the official Protestant position was that Mary wasn´t a perpetual virgin. However, according to this article, virtually all reformers (even Calvin and Zwingli) had the same position as the Catholic Church on *this* question. 

Hmmm... 

Why Real Protestants Loved Mary 

"Ulrich Zwingli also loves you, ma´m"