Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Month: June 2018

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?

Rett skal være rett – et partipolitisk innslag

Arbeiderpartiet sliter, sies det. Det kan være mange grunner til det, og media er stadig frampå med forklaringsmodeller.

Jeg har mine egne tanker om dette og hint, selvfølgelig. I et demokrati må politiske partier tåle at det koster å ta upopulære avgjørelser, og følgelig tar de fleste partier alt for få av dem. Arbeiderpartiet er ikke noe unntak da det må ta hensyn til det såkalte “grunnfjellet”, som fremfor alt ikke ønsker innskrenkninger, begrensninger, avkortinger, nedskjæringer og annet som kan true eller begrense økt velstand for de av oss som er mest høylydte, mest verbale og mest pågående.

I mellomtiden et ansvarlig parti forholde seg til folkerett, internasjonale avtaler og langsiktige økonomiske og klimatiske forhold. Arbeiderpartiet er dessuten programforpliktet til å forholde seg til solidaritetsprinsippet, hva nå det enn innebærer. Sikkert er det i alle fall at det omfatter også våre nye landsmenn. Akkurat dette siste faller enkelte tungt for brystet, og derfor er det mange som håper at det ikke blir stadig flere “nye landsmenn”.

Sikkert er det også at vi i de kommende årene vil oppleve mange relativt dramatiske endringer som ingen av oss vil sette pris på, flere av dem betinget av klimaendringer som til dels blir uforutsigelige. Kulden nå i vinter var det vel få som forutså, og hetebølgen og tørken vi nettopp har opplevd var det heller ikke mange som forestilte seg på forhånd. Hvordan skal vel bønder kunne tilpasse seg slike svingninger? Dette har bare vært en ørliten forsmak. Vi foretrekker å ikke tenke på det, men allerede ser vi at økt rasfare som følge av stigende nedbør, betyr at folk vil måtte forlate gård og grunn mange steder i landet, og hvem skal betale for det?

Samtidig vokser polariseringen mellom NATO-land på den ene siden og, på den andre, konkurrerende land og traumatiserte folkegrupper. Denne polariseringen håndteres etter mitt skjønn svært dårlig av NATO. Det er en annen historie jeg ikke ønsker å gå nærmere inn på her og nå.

Det jeg ville ha sagt, er at Jonas Gahr Støre er en mann som nyter mye større respekt enn det oppslutningen om Arbeiderpartiet kan tyde på. Personlig har jeg aldri stemt på Arbeiderpartiet. Jeg regner heller ikke med å gjøre det i fremtiden. Men de aller fleste jeg snakker med om politikk, og det er mange – og det fra ulike politiske ståsteder, fordi jeg er opptatt av landets ve og vel – omtaler ham med stor varme og respekt. Han oppleves som en sjelden fugl i den politiske faunaen, som en usedvanlig hederlig og rettskaffen person. Dertil er han mer enn vanlig kunnskapsrik, analytisk og velsignet klar i tanke og tale. Om det skulle være slik at enkelte personer i Arbeiderpartiet intrigerer mot ham, så anser jeg det som tragisk. Tragisk for Arbeiderpartiet og også for oss andre: Dersom det enda er en mulighet for at Arbeiderpartiet igjen kan lede en flerpartiregjering, så ville det muligens forutsette Jonas Gahr Støre som leder.

Til tross, altså, for at jeg ikke er noen Arbeiderpartitilhenger, så ønsker jeg med dette å uttrykke en slags hyllest fra min ringe person til Jonas Gahr Støre. Dette gjør jeg ikke minst fordi jeg vet det er utallige andre personer i Norge som ikke er “partipolitisk aktive”, men som følger med og som bryr seg om vårt lille lands skjebne i en usikker fremtid og som har større tro på ham enn på Arbeiderpartiet han leder.

© 2025 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑