Pelshval

Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Author: pelshvalen (Page 1 of 53)

Med slike venner…

11.09.2026 /

Jeg sto og så ut over fjorden fra Hvervenbuka som ligger på østsiden av fjorden rett utenfor Oslo. Lamslått, sto jeg der jeg nettopp hadde kommet rundt en sving og oppdaget at det var en stor svart skygge som blokkerte utsikten over til vestsida. En enorm svart skygge. Verdens største hangarskip, var det noen som sa.

***

Sceneskift: Jeg sto et sted på østsida av fjorden og så ut over en liten armada av luksuriøse fritidsbåter. De var pyntet til fest med vimpler og flagg og stimet inn mot Oslo. Mens jeg sto der og lurte på hva de feiret, oppdaget jeg en gjenstand som liksom fløt et par titalls meter over dem. Gjenstanden var formet som en halvrøkt sigar og oppførte seg som en frivol ballong – en ballong som usynlige lekende hender forhindrer fra å falle på bakken.

Dette var en drøm, forstås. Visste jeg at jeg drømte? Man gjør jo av og til det. Men før jeg kom så langt som til å lure på hva var virkelig, og hva var drøm, strammet den halvrøkte sigaren seg opp, skjøt fart og forsvant i retning Oslo sentrum. Et øyeblikk senere hørtes et brak.

Den lille feststemte armadaen lot seg ikke affisere. Jeg lurte fortvilet på hvordan jeg kunne advare dem mot å fortsette inn mot Oslo. Avmakten må ha vekket meg.

***

Rystet våken, visste jeg umiddelbart hva som hadde fremkalt en drøm om et angrep mot Oslo:
Det var nemlig en overskrift jeg så i går i et høyst seriøst og respektert USAnsk tidsskrift: Norges beslagleggelse av et russisk skip er en farlig opptrapping. Den overskriften er en advarsel til norske styresmakter. De leker med ild. Støre vil gjerne være stor blant de store EU-bøllene? Han vil imponere ved å være bestis med Zelenski? Uansett hvilke motiver Støre har, så er han på forferdelig feil spor.

Benign?

08.09.2026 /

For some reason – maybe I’ve been reading the wrong sort of literature – the only collocations I know for the word benign are “tumour” and “hegemon”.

“We were all relieved to learn that her tumour was benign.”

” USA was a benign hegemon.”

At present, USA is no longer a hegemon, and it certainly isn’t and never has been benign. Look at all the wars – the past, present and future wars.

***

But this post is not about my views, not even about the Ukraine or Iran wars. I would like to bring to your attention the work of a Swede living in Norway who has devoted his career to research.

Ola Tunander is “research professor emeritus” at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO, an institution that he has served since 1987). He is a heavyweight on research about inter alia the cold war and Nordic security issues.

However, he is not first and foremost a particularly good writer. The articles I wish to bring to your attention are not eloquent. They will not move you to tears. In fact they may even bore you because they are detached, painfully detailed and based on research over many years. Moreover they concern a topic that may not even interest you: the assassination of the Swedish prime minister, Olav Palme, in 1986. The police investigation was reminiscent of that following the killing of a US president in 1963: It was farcical.

The reason I recommend the four articles is that they demonstrate that USA’s intentions never were, in any sense or anywhere, “benign”, not before the fall of the Soviet Union nor after. Not in Europe nor anywhere else. Not even in Sweden and certainly not for the majority of US citizens. Also, they demonstrate that no matter how honest a cop you are, or police prosecutor, or forensic scientist, or witness, you will do as you’re told if you smell sulphur. Else: you will at best lose your job. And people do get killed, you know.

The four articles focus on and examine the reliability of various sources. If you find you haven’t the patience for such scrutiny, I advise you to read as much of Part I as you can manage and then skip to Part IV.

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

The bottom line — whether or not you do actually read those four articles, is that the US billionaires running USA will stop at nothing in order to get rid of anyone standing in their way. The most recent case in point is the rape of Venezuela, which they have been planning for decades in both parties, with repeated unsuccessful coup attempts and regime change operations and by demonising its leaders,. Trump finally did it! Yup, he’s a degenerate, but his foreign policy differs from that of past administrations only in that it makes no attempt to pretend to be benign.

Tiden og sånn

04.09.2026 /

På sin Substack-side skriver Deaglan O’Mulrooney:

For rundt fem år siden… var jeg en ihuga støttespiller av Ukraina. … og skrev, om den ene og den andre, at de spredde russisk propaganda. …

Men nå, altså fem år senere, har jeg fullstendig endret oppfatning, ikke på grunn av noen enkelt hendelse, men fordi jeg startet denne nettsiden og måtte sette meg inn i folkemordet på palestinerne. Jeg måtte også lese meg opp om Israel, det amerikanske imperiet, Kina, Latin-Amerika og alt derimellom. Det ble klart for meg at etablerte nyhets-kanaler her i Vesten, som jo alle oppfordret meg til å støtte Ukraina, nettopp var de om fortalte meg at det ikke foregikk noe folkemord i Palestina. Det var også de som hadde løyet om Kina, Venezuela og Cuba. Det var da jeg begynte å gjøre mine egne undersøkelser.

[oversatt av Pelshval] [uthevelse av Pelshval]

Tittelen på artikkelen klippet er hentet fra, er the Ukrainian people are fighting for their survival…against Ukraine, etter min mening en av de mer treffende overskriftene jeg har sett i det siste. For makan til mishandling av egen befolkning skal en lete lenge etter. Hvis du ikke ønsker å lese den, vil du kanskje likevel titte på forfatterens link til en side med nesten 10 000 video-snutter tatt av tilfeldige vitner til Ukrainske myndigheters jakt på kanonføde. Her er f.eks. “busification” i Odessa.

Det er ikke nytt at Ukraina ikke er et demokrati. Det som er nytt er at stadig flere mennesker skjønner det. Og jeg synes det Deaglan O’Mulrooney påpeker er særdeles interessant, nemlig at han så hvordan nyhetskanalene og statslederne i de fleste land i “Vesten” benektet eller legitimerte Israels barbariske nedslakting av det palestinske folket og at han derfor følte seg nødtvungen til også å gå det rådende narrativet om Ukraina nærmere etter i sømmene.

Jeg har vært inne på en lignende tanke. Vår utenriksminister, Espen Bart Eide, har gjentatte ganger vært meget klar i sin skarpe kritikk av Israels ulike menneskerettsforbrytelser. Norge er sågar en av de første landene i Europa som anerkjente “Staten Palestina”. Jeg har i samtale med venner omtalt ham som “sleip”. Han vet at Palestina har mange venner her til lands, og han vil ikke terge oss med å følge Storbritannias og Tysklands linje i forhold til Israel. Norge er på “riktig side” hva gjelder folkemordet, og nordmenn opplever derfor ikke det Deaglan O’Mulrooney opplever, nemlig at myndighetene og den etablerte pressen juger om Palestina og at man derfor ikke kan ha tillit til dem.

Jeg har påstått at det derfor er takket være Bart Eide at vi i Norge nærmest til siste mann og kvinne er villige til å sende milliarder til Ukraina.

Jeg har muligens tatt feil om vår utenriksminister. Det kan hende han ikke først og fremst er “sleip”, men tvert imot rakrygget. Ola Tunander later til å gå god for Espen Bart Eide, om ikke for vår statsminister.

For den politiske ledelsen, for statsminister Jonas Gahr Støre, har en bok av den antirussiske Yale-professoren Timothy Snyder vært av største betydning, og Støre har gitt boken til sine venner. Men Snyders fremstilling av en historisk tale holdt av Putin er direkte uriktig, og den har ført til en partisk tolkning av Russland.

For utenriksminister Espen Barth Eide er FN-pakten, altså folkeretten, det viktigste, men han var ikke klar over hva som faktisk skjedde i Kiev i 2014. Slik forstår jeg det.

[KI-oversatt] [Uthevet av Pelshval]

Det Ola Tunander skriver veier gjerne tungt hos meg.

Og hvem er så Ola Tunander? Jo han er en tungvekter innen fredsforskning og sikkerhetspolitikk. Han ble bl.a., som “seniorforsker i 1989, leder for PRIOs forskningsprogram i utenriks- og sikkerhetspolitikk i 1995 og forskningsprofessor i 2000. Hans CV er en murstein.

På den annen side er Ola Tunander en svenske som ser skrekkelig streng ut, men som har en lun sans for humor. Det kan jeg slå fast fordi jeg har hørt ham tale. Første gang jeg støtte på navnet hans, var i en bok utgitt i 2019, Krigens uutholdelige letthet, redigert av tidligere oberstløytnant Tormod Heier. Boka var en vekker for meg, for å si det pent. Den levnet ingen tvil om at norsk deltakelse i Libya-operasjonen var skamløs. Den godeste Jens Stoltenberg vil ha mye å stå til ansvar for hvis han noensinne skulle møte Vårherre.

Heier og Tunander bidro med hvert sitt kapittel i boka. Det gjorde de igjen i boka Krigen i Ukraina, utgitt i 2023. At de hadde våget å skrive så kritisk om vår entusiastiske utslettelse av Libya var påfallende, syntes jeg, så jeg leste med interesse Krigen i Ukraina. Igjen var det Heier som var ansvarlig for utgivelsen. Og igjen vanket det kritikk av NATO. Den kritikken har kostet ham dyrt.

Ukraina-krigen er uten tvil den største katastrofen som har rammet Europa siden annen verdenskrig. Analysen av dens årsaker, har vært på bunnivå. Følgelig har også håndteringen av den vært suicidal. I så måte har Heier og Tunander vært blant svært få svaler på den norske akademiske himmelen, men de blir ikke hørt av dem som styrer skuta. De blir heller kike hørt av landers øvrige innbyggere; det sørger NRK og den såkalt “redaktørstyrte” pressen for.

I andre land, derimot, begynner folk så smått å mistenke at fortellingen om den slemme trollmanen Putin som vil spise stakkars lille Ukraina og dernest resten av Europa – at den fortellingen ikke er vanntett. Det har oppstått lekkasjer i den. Det siver ut om Zelenski at han digger døde nazister, og at han er kompis med Netanyahu. Ja, og så er det igjen dette med at de som mest ivrer for å drepe russere også benekter eller legitimerer folkemord.

Det skurrer. Det faglige uttrykket for det som stadig flere opplever er “kognitiv dissonans”, jf. dette dypt frustrerte innlegget. Han som skriver (og han skriver meget godt!) har så vidt jeg vet ikke tidligere stilt spørsmålstegn ved NATO-landenes deltakelse i Ukraina-krigen. Som Tormod Heier og Julie Wilhelmsen har fått erfare, er det jo ikke lov. I hvert fall ikke i Norge.

Men i Frankrike, Tyskland, Italia har det lenge vært lov – og nå også i USA og Storbritannia. I alle disse landene, hvor tilliten til maktinstansene er minimal, tror folk ikke lenger på historiene de får servert ovenfra. Det er på tide at også vi i Norge våkner! Sammen med finnene og svenskene, er det nemlig vi som har mest å tape på den krigen som EU og Storbritannia akter å framtvinge.

Se forressten samtalen mellom Ola Tunander og Espen Alnes om Ukraina-krigen.

Witness

27.08.2026 /

Look at them.

Look at them again. Each one alone in his own world. When you walk like that, trudging for miles through snow from one scene of death and destruction to another, memory becomes a mosaic of fragments. God only knows what these German soldiers had been thinking as they committed their crimes against humanity, particularly on the Russian front, and what may or may not have been revisiting them in this picture. Here, silently crossing an endless plain, they were exhausted, probably hungry, and deeply disturbed.

Am I defending them. Certainly not! But I put to you that they were victims, just as whole populations have been victims, again and again and again throughout history. So were the peoples governed by Churchill and Stalin, but it just so happened that Hitler crossed a red line, from our perspective, that of considering certain “races” of the human species “untermenschen”. He was not the only one, of course: The British, the French, and the US Americans, to name but the most powerful, refused to accept the Jewish refugees on the St. Louis in 1939. And to this day, they consider African and Latin American lives, not to mention Palestinians and Iranians dispensable.

We were not informed, I repeat, just as we are not being informed now. We are only useful for the high and mightily insofar as we are ignorant of their misdeeds.

To this day, people like you and me are unwittingly committing heinous deeds on behalf of the rich and powerful (currently the US government) in the Middle East, in Latin America and wherever they can get a foothold (Venezuela, Mexico, Argentina, Equador, Colombia, Bolivia, Honduras, Guatemala…).

Imagine a feature film called “The American Way”. We follow the protagonists, Marco Rubio and the ghosts of the Dulles Brothers, as they loot Latin America’s resources and arrange for political opponents to be assassinated. Unlike them, most of their soldiers have “hearts” – in the sense that killing (e.g. by starvation) innocent people goes against the grain (most ordinary people have moral fibre). The brave and decent US soldiers refuse to do the bidding of Rubio and the Dulles brothers, so wave after wave of collective suicides hamper the extractivist operations.

In the real world, cries of anguish ae now being heard from US aircraft carriers. Larry Johnson on Sonar 21 has published a heartbreaking letter from a grieving father:

He was deployed to Abu Dhabi for about 10 months. He was supposed to return on March 2nd, but the events on Feb 28th (which was also his BIRTHDAY) changed that abruptly, extending his deployment almost six months. He returned about a month ago.

… He immediately checked himself into the hospital for PTSD …[and was] released after a week or so, despite his own protestations,

…Operational security prevented us from speaking as regularly as we did prior to the war starting, but I do know he was deeply affected by the double tap Tomahawk missile strike in Minab, and was sickened by the genocide in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. Nobody, he said, believes in the mission.


We who live in Europe have difficulty understanding the cost of war. I actually believe that US Americans know more about it, because relatives and friends of the 58,281 US Americans who lost their lives in Vietnam and many permanently traumatised US veterans are still alive. But do they see the Vietnam war from the Vietnamese perspective?

In Europe we are being goaded into a war that we will definitely not win. I’m not saying that Russia will win the war Europe is so gung-ho to wage, but Europe will certainly not. The war the EU is hankering for will be a net disaster for all of us.

There are too many boys and girls playing war games on their computers!!!
There are too many bored boys and girls who hanker for a bit of action. What do they know of the consequences of “action”?

And too many of us – including myself — did not notice a crime against humanity committed by the USA and the UK in the mid 1970s and ever since. (One of the many, it is true, but this one had a troublesome witness: John PiIger.

John Pilger was a witness of many US/UK crimes. The UK and USA are surely glad he is dead, but his voice is not. See Pilger films.

According to AP News, the USA has used the Diego Garcia Base as “an all but indispensable platform” for “security operations” in the Middle East, South Asia and East Africa”. Dirty business, to say the least. Here is John PIlger’s documentary about Chagos/Diego Garcia.

Kto vinovat?

25.08.2026 /

Kto vinovat is the title of a novel published in 1846. It was written by the Russian socialist Alexander Herzen. I was taken in by it when I was a student, but I remember next to nothing of it now, though I am sure I much prefer the Russian title to the English translation: Who is to blame? The Russian question sounds more peremptory, does it not? And with good reason: The fabulously rich landowners that governed Russia were an utterly futile gang of parasites living off the labour of the serfs. In practical terms the serfs were slaves. They really were the property of the landowners. Russian landowners were thus worse, even, than the British landowning rentiers so disparaged by Adam Smith.

In 1861, the serfs were “emancipated” de jure if not de facto, in the sense that they owned nothing but the rags they wore. At the end of the century, abject poverty was still endemic in the countryside as described in several of Anton Chekhov’s short stories. At any rate, Alexander Herzen was credited with having brought the plight of the serfs to the attention of the educated public with his writing.

Fortunately, some of the Russian landowners had sons – yes, mostly sons, since women were valued at best as decorative household assets or in some cases as wealthy heiresses – sons, then, who felt terrible about the injustice of it all. Tolstoy is the most famous of them, but there were very many others – including a large number of wonderfully gifted composers and writers, one of them being Alexander Herzen.

I remember that his novel Kto vinovat painted a picture of how education and self-respect would eventually enable the suppressed and suffering masses to earn a living and have dignity, The expression “suppressed and suffering masses” is no joke, believe me, though it sounds like Soviet propaganda, I know. It is none the less a reality many places even today, not least in Latin America, where Trump’s cronies are destroying what little was left after the end of the brutal Kissinger-aided dictatorships.

In Russia’s case, what Herzen started ended with a revolution – the jury is still out about the merits of that revolution. You will know my opinion about it when I tell you that in Spain, where there was no revolution, “education, literacy campaigns and self-respect” were drowned in bloodbaths in the 1930s to be followed by nearly 50 years of religious and political state terror.

What I do remember of the book was the exquisite courtesy and mutual respect between the two protagonists, a man and a woman living together. They loved each other, but they were to have separate rooms, to dress for dinner, and to knock on each other’s door to request admittance. Back then, I gave much thought to this approach to “equality between the sexes”. It seemed very outlandish, but it also made sense. After all, cohabitation tends to wear down what might initially have been “true love”. There is daily friction, repetition, boredom…You know, I am sure.

But in the end, things do not work out for Herzen’s protagonist couple. Kto vinovat?

***

Norwegians tend to be averse to conflicts. I believe “conflict avoidance” is a technical term.

If a Norwegian knows of a couple who are engaged in particularly acrimonious divorce proceedings, he or she will say “it takes two to tango”, meaning: let’s divide the blame equally.

Even about Palestinians and Israel, they would actually say, “Well, you know the issue is very complicated.” I would say: “It is not! Israel is an apartheid state.” Then they would try to appease me: Israel has made mistakes, but so have the Palestinians.” Meaning, again: Let’s divide the blame in two equal parts.

Why, then, are Norwegians so adamant with regard to the Ukraine war? As I have previously stressed: Norwegian journalists and Norwegian foreign service officials are very well educated. They are the crème de la crème in terms of university results. So why are they pretending to be blind, deaf and suffering from learning disabilities? Russia, you see, is to blame for absolutely everything.

The Palestinians have certainly made mistakes. Who hasn’t? But Israel is now finally being recognised by most, not least by Norwegians, as a genocidal state. The dividing line today is between those who recognise genocide as legitimate (e.g. most of the US Congress) and those who don’t. That is the extent of our moral decay!

At least Russia is not being blamed for genocide. Not yet. But mark my words: Once the political West finally admits that Ukraine has lost the war, they will accuse Russia of genocide.

My question tonight is: Why is there no discussion in the Norwegian media about ultra-nationalism, the use of Nazi insignia, and – not least – brutal political, linguistic, cultural and religious suppression in Ukraine? Why do the Norwegian media not demand accountability for the vast sums of money we send to that most hideously corrupt of countries?

And who, in the end, is to blame for the total destruction – soon almost to the last Ukrainian – of Ukraine? Kto vinovat? Russia? Ukraine? or the NATO countries?

Oljefondet

15.08.2026 /

På en måte – ja, på nesten alle måter – er vi grenseløst heldige som ikke bor i USA. Men på én måte er vi mindre heldige, mener jeg: Jeg mistenker det er prosentvis flere USAnere enn nordmenn som skjønner at systemet til syvende og sist ikke er designet for å tjene “vanlige folk”. Hør bare på Tucker Carlson.

I Norge sier vi at vi tross alt har det veldig godt sammenlignet med folk i nesten alle andre land. Og det er jo sant. Men vi har mer eller mindre det samme systemet som “land det er naturlig å sammenligne oss med”, med små variasjoner. Se bare på hva som skjer i Finland – samme system, men uten olje. Vi har altså oljen, som tillater hode-over-vann-inntekter for de aller fleste, i tillegg til 479 milliardærer. Den får vi bruke 3 % av hvert år, over statsbudsjettet.

Forleden siterte Pål Steigan respektfullt Nicolai Tangen, tro det eller ei: “Oljefondet kan forsvinne”, advarer Tangen visstnok, og hvem har bedre forutsetning enn nettopp han til å gi en slik advarsel.

Med tanke på at vi muligens kan miste fremtidens sparepenger, lurer Pål Steigan på om vi har brukt dem på best mulig måte. Det vi har gjort er å nyte tanken på alle pengene som stadig tikker inn på vår felles norske konto i form av renteinntekter. Vi er, i praksis, “rentenister”, mener Steigan. Hvis ikke jeg har misforstått helt fundamentalt, var både Adam Smith og Karl Marx beinharde motstandere av rentenister, som de begge anså som parasitter, som “reap where they never sowed” (A. Smith). Steigan skriver:

Et mye fattigere Norge investerte i jernbanen og vannkrafta. De investeringene har ikke gått tapt på over 100 år. Hvorfor kunne ikke et mye rikere Norge ha gjort noe liknende?
…
Norge har underinvestert i egen produktivitet, forskning, boligbygging og grønn omstilling…

Så sant, så sant. Veldig fornuftig artikkel fra Pål Steigan! En vekker. Er vi som Onkel Skrue, en som bare “sitter på” pengebingen?

Det er mange som advarer nå, kanskje ikke om oljefondet, men om den økonomiske livskraften i hele den politiske Vesten, altså systemet som er fullstendig avhengig av USA og den USAnske dollaren (den såkalte “reservevalutaen”). Økonomene Warwick Powell og Radikha Dessai analyserer her hvorfor USA sakker akterut på alle fronter i forhold til Kina, og hvorfor AI-boblen vil måtte sprekke før eller siden – selv om den ganske sikkert vil holdes gående med kunstig åndedrett “i hvert fall til mellomvalget 4. november” (som de sier ca. 30 minutter ut i samtalen).

Det er en ganske så inngående analyse. De forklarer hvordan USAs “venture capital” (risikokapital) fungerer. “Venture Capital” er en form for privat egenkapitalfinansiering som tilbys av selskaper eller fond til oppstartsbedrifter, selskaper i tidlig fase og fremvoksende selskaper som anses å ha “vekstpotensial”. Det høres flott ut, men nettresultatet er at de store bare blir større på bekostning av talløse små men ofte kreative idéskapere. De forklarer også hvordan Kina, til forskjell fra USA, har satset massivt på menneskelig kapital (bl.a. utdanning) og prioriterer samfunnsnyttige områder.

Med kunstig åndedrett mener de at kursen på aksjene til Sillicon Valley-bedriftene (ikke minst “the Magnificent 7”) fortsatt er påfallende høy til tross for at tusenvis av bedriftenes ansatte er blitt sagt opp både i 2025 og 2026. Bedriftene har satset uhemmet på AI, hvor de muligens vil bli utkonkurrert av kinesiske bedrifter; jf. Kimi K3, i forhold til Claud. Dessuten krever AI-boblen datalagringssentre, som krever enormt mye energi, og vi har for tiden en voksende energikrise.

Hvorfor er kursen fortsatt høy? Fordi man snakker den opp. Fordi man “tror på” bobler – det ligger i selve definisjonen av en “boble”. Også fordi Mag 7 aksjer tradisjonelt sett har vært ansett som “trygge”. Dessuten fordi de etablerte mediene, som liksom skal sørge for å informere oss, jo eies av konsernene (og/eller staten) som ønsker å holde aksjemarkedet oppe. Alle konsern ønsker å holde akskjemarkedet oppe. Går den ene ned, faller de andre som dominoer, og ikke bare innen samme bransje. Det finnes de som frykter at aksjemarkedet vil kollapse innen så godt som alle bransjer.

Mange Sillicon Valley selskap produserer faktisk saker og ting vi antakelig vil fortsette å ønske å kjøpe, så selskapene blir neppe verdiløse over natten. Det er spekulasjonen som kan kollapse – pyramidespill, pengespill, altså aksjemarkedet.

Nå er det så at mange har, i lengre tid, spådd at aksjemarkedet vil kollapse . En av dem er finansanalytikeren Sean Foo (US stocks are off the rails). Det har ikke kollapset enda, det er så, men man kan lære mye av Sean Foo.

Men berører aksjemarkedet vanlige nordmenn?

Ja, det tror jeg. Rent bortsett fra at mange småsparere plasserer sparepengene sine i aksjer, så har Oljefondet investert 946 milliarder dollar i amerikanske aksjer: NOK 8 952 217 830 992, Det tilsvarer 39 % av fondets totale verdi.

Men så er det i tillegg dette med USAs gjeld. Den har nå nådd 40 billioner USD. (“40 trillion”). Renteutgiftene alene utgjør ca. 22 % av landets totale inntekter, eller rundt 3 milliarder pr dag! Det amerikanske finansdepartementet må derfor låne ytterligere 155 milliarder pr måned.

I tillegg til å låne begynte USA i 2025 å opprette nye penger. Det kalles kvantitativ lettelse (QE). Dette tynner i praksis ut verdien av hver dollar (devaluering) og medfører inflasjon. Det er vel og merke ikke første gangen USA iverksetter QE.

Et annet ord for “gjeld” i denne sammenhengen er obligasjoner. Statsobligasjoner kjøpes av USAs egne borgere og av Gulf-statene (det var betingelsen for at de kunne jekke opp prisen på olje på 1970-tallet og det er opphavet til uttrykket Petrodollar). Også andre stater og deres borgere “investerer” i USAnske obligasjoner.

Da jeg gikk på skolen lærte jeg at “statsobligasjoner” var sikker investering, til forskjell fra aksjekjøp. Bedrifter kunne gå konkurs, det gjorde ikke stater. (Jeg tror nok ikke lærebøkene hadde fått med seg hva som skjedde med europeiske statsobligasjoner etter verdenskrigene. Det var det Piketty, som lærte meg.)

På 2010-tallet var ca. 45% av USAnske statsobligasjoner eid av utlendinger. Land etter land selger nå unna disse statsobligasjonene og nå eies kun en tredel av utlendinger. Med god grunn. Andelen som eies av utlendinger eies dessuten i økende grad av privatpersoner; altså ikke av stater. Foreløpig har ikke Europa solgt unna. (Vi har sett at Trump nylig truet Europa til å investere mer i USA.)

Oljefondet har investert NOK 3 033 427 772 312 i USAnske obligasjoner (statsobligasjoner og også obligasjoner utstedt av bedrifter), et beløp som tilsvarer 13,2 % av oljefondet. De pengene vil vi garantert aldri se igjen.

Dessuten mister nå obligasjonene oljefondet en gang kjøpte verdi, visstnok ca. 2% per måned, bl.a. pga av QE, men også pga. generelt synkende tillit til den USAnske valutaen. Det er jo helt klart at USA aldri vil kunne tilbakebetale sin gjeld, knapt nok betjene den, og det er grenser for hvor lenge landet vil finne investorer som er villige til å gi lån.

Når man inkluderer aksjer, obligasjoner og eiendom, er rundt 52,9 % av oljefondet investert i USA.

Så et helt annet spørsmål: Hva skjer med krona om dollaren rett og slett kollapser? JEG ANER IKKE!

Krona er jo ikke sikret med gull, som tilfellet var før 1971, men heller ikke med dollar. Jeg tror det er av uvurderlig betydning at vi har vår egen valuta, at vi ikke er med i Eurosonen, for eksempel. Mange formuer vil sikkert bli borte i dragsuget, men om våre myndigheter ikke lar seg presse av USA/EU, skal Ola og Kari kunne skånes fra nød. Og særlig hvis oljefondet på forhånd har investert i nyttige langsiktige resssurser – ikke datalagrindssentre – vil Norge snart komme seg på beina igjen.

Dollaren er verdens “reservevaluta”, har vært det siden Bretton Woods avtalen i 1944, da landet USA var sterkt som grunnfjellet. Men nå er det ikke lenger noe grunnfjell under dollaren, bare kvikkleire. Vi bør ta det innover oss. Jeg anbefaler igjen Pål Steigans vekker, “Nicolai Tangen: «Oljefondet kan forsvinne, og det er mer sannsynlig enn vi liker å tro“.

“Finans” er et felt de færreste av oss liker å berøre, men finans-verdenen er mektig, dessverre, og det er viktig at flere enn økonomer (som oftest er betalt nettopp av finans-folkene) våger å ha meninger om finans-emner. Oljefondet tilhører oss, det norske folket, og det ville være fint om vi mente noe om hvordan det brukes.

Humor

13.08.2026 /

Jeg vet ikke. Kanskje er jeg for gammel. Men han som har laget animasjonsfilmen jeg linker til nedenfor er kanskje eldre: Richard J.Sanders.

For dem som ikke orker å se filmen og/eller ikke klarer få med seg alle de kulturhistoriske referansene, har han hengt på en festlig (forklarende) tekst som han illustrerer med bl.a. smilet til Maria Machado:

Han avslutter teksten med å anmode oss om å spre budskapet – altså filmen. Noe jeg nå gjør med glede.

Filmen stuper av gårde i et rasende tempo og minner om både MAD Magazine og Monty-Python filmene, som i sin tid var veldig populære særlig blant gutta. For min del blir jeg svimmel av alt ståket.

Men budskapet er klart. Det at noen har orket å vie SÅ MYE og SÅ ILLSINT arbeid til å fremme et godt budskap, er jo oppløftende. Og enten man liker stilen eller ei, så er dette imponerende håndverk!

Narrative warfare

05.08.2026 /

Reading Richard Sakwa’s book The Lost Peace: How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War (2024), I was struck by the following words:

…the ‘securitisation’ of new policy areas, both in Russia and the West. According to the Copenhagen School, securitisation is the way that ‘normal’ politics is subsumed into national security discourses, which then shape policy.

Just what does that mean? I wondered. Could those words, whatever their meaning, somehow explain why corporate and state media in my country give an incorrect picture of the causes and consequences of the Ukraine war and of how it is being handled by the political West?

I pasted the quote into an AI powered search engine and asked what it meant (Yes, I know that is cheating, but I was “securitising” as I don’t have time to enrol in a course of Security Studies):

What Securitisation Theory Says:
The Copenhagen School argues that “security” is not an objective fact, but a discursive construction. Something becomes a “security issue” not because it inherently threatens survival, but because political actors successfully frame it that way.

[In] normal politics: Issues are debated through ordinary political channels—with compromise, trade-offs, and democratic deliberation.

A securitising move: A political actor (leader, institution, media) declares an issue an existential threat requiring emergency measures—”this isn’t just policy, it’s about our survival.”

[Source: AI-response]

Aha! So there is such a thing as securitisation theory! Bingo. Now I know what to look for.
AI continues:

[When a] security discourse takes over:
Once accepted, the issue moves from normal politics into the realm of security, where:

  • Emergency powers are justified
  • Scrutiny is reduced (“we must act quickly!”)
  • Opposition can be framed as disloyal or dangerous
  • Policy priorities shift dramatically

So much for AI.
Here, then, is an article explaining the Copenhagen School’s securitisation theory and here. There are lots of papers about the topic. Next, I looked for articles about “securitisation theory” and Europe, but most of the hits concerned migration or “market competition”.

One article, however, in the Eurasian Review deals with the issue I am looking for: Securitization And Militarization Of European Politics:

EU leaders have consistently securitised the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war (now in its fifth year) as an “existential threat” to Europe’s security, democracy, and sovereignty.

For the 2026 Iran war, triggered by US-Israeli strikes, leaders portray Iran’s nuclear/missile capabilities as a “huge threat” to Europe. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called Iran an “existential threat” to Israel and a regional peril spilling into Europe via energy crises, migration, and potential terror.

The article goes on to refer to the Copenhagen School, explaining that the very concept of securitisation in international relations “represents a paradigm shift in security studies”. The article outlines some of the Copenhagen School’s key concepts, such as the “speech act”:

When a securitising actor successfully presents an issue as an existential threat to a referent object—whether state, society, or other entity— and this claim is accepted by a relevant audience, the issue becomes securitised. This process legitimises the adoption of emergency measures that would be unacceptable under normal political circumstances. [emphasis by Pelshval]

That securitisation may lead to militarisation is implied rather than stated – after all, the name of the article is, I repeat, Securitization And Militarization Of European Politics, and the section headed “Militarisation phenomenon” starts with what I interpret as a warning:

The militarisation of politics in international relations refers to the increasing influence of military institutions, values, and personnel in political decision-making processes and the normalisation of military solutions to political problems.

Under the heading “Militarisation of European Politics”, the article continues:

Security Action for Europe (SAFE), adopted by the EU Council in May 2025, is a €150 billion loan program designed to bolster European security amid ongoing threats, … and strengthen the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB)

… As part of the Readiness 2030 agenda, it has disbursed billions to nations like Poland (€43.7 billion) for procurements, integrating non-EU allies like Canada while excluding others.

…

SAFE integrates Ukraine’s defence industry on equal terms with EU states, allowing Kyiv to participate in projects and access funding indirectly through member states. (By 2026, 19 national plans had been submitted, with 15 including support for Ukraine worth billions, fostering interoperability and industrial ties.)

…

Politically, SAFE advances federalisation by centralising defence decisions, bypassing unanimity through “coalitions of the willing” and joint borrowing. EU spending rose 30% to €326 billion by 2024, with SAFE enabling deviations from fiscal rules for defence. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz push for European-led forces in Ukraine post-ceasefire, while Andrius Kubilius highlights SAFE’s role in binding Ukraine to EU structures.

[emphasis by Pelshval]

Phew! Pretty hot stuff, that.

… Critics argue this erodes national sovereignty, risking over-militarisation and internal divisions. (ibid)

No wonder!

But how do do European leaders convince their populations that all this defence spending is necessary? For instance by frightening them:

In Sweden, Lithuania, and Poland, governments distribute booklets like “If Crisis or War Comes,” instructing citizens to stockpile essentials and locate shelters, reviving Cold War-era resilience efforts. Allegedly, the Netherlands mailed emergency guides to all households, stressing survival for 72 hours without utilities. France introduces voluntary national service for teens, integrating defence education, while Poland mandates security courses in schools, including firearm training for youth. (ibid)

Going forward:

Institutionally, the EU’s Readiness 2030 plan, endorsed by leaders, … €800 billion in initiatives like SAFE for joint procurement and infrastructure upgrades. This includes boosting military spending by 30% since 2022 and fostering irreversible integration to counter political volatility…. (ibid)

[emphasis by Pelshval]

Voila!: “irreversible integration to counter political volatility”. That is the key and the only phrase in the entire article that is veiled. Even the Eurasian Review needs to keep its head down.

So lets dig a little more.

Didier Bigo, Professor of International Relations at King’s College London is considered a leading figure in the so-called Paris School of security studies. He is quoted in a paper about Security professionals and public opinion: Legitimacy, publicity and brand identity which, by the way, introduces me to a rather cute word, securocrates:

… the crucial role and importance of non-elected security officials to how security is designed, administered and experienced. One concern is whether such officials lack public accountability and whether their performance of such roles and functions lies in tension with democratic norms. As Bigo (2002): argues ‘They [security professionals] benefit from the belief that they know what ‘we’ (non-professionals, amateurs) do not know and that they have specific modes of action of a technical nature that we are not supposed to know about’. Further, this ‘field’ of security is able to use this expert knowledge to define key questions of (in)security, over and above those of other actors, such as public voices and thus ‘exclude[s] other actors. . . by disqualifying their points of view on the definition of threats and on the public policies aiming to prevent the threats’


Professor Didier Bigo has written several articles and papers, some of which can be downloaded, discussing EU/Schengen security arrangements. His writing is conspicuously academic. Being French, he also has a penchant for convoluted sentences, and I see that he, too, keeps his head down. He frames criticism of the system as recommendations to the authorities rather than as flak. All in all, it is difficult to distil key points of his critique.

On the other hand, for the CGT, the largest trade union in France, the situation is quite clear. On the streets, no less: No longer does the Law limit power; power redefines the Law. I believe many US Americans will recognise the veracity of that statement. The following is from a CGT flyer.

Security vs Justice:
Signals intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). As classified and sensitive information is usually encrypted, signals intelligence may necessarily involve cryptanalysis (to decipher the messages). Traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling to whom and in what quantity—is also used to integrate information, and it may complement cryptanalysisSignals intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). As classified and sensitive information is usually encrypted, signals intelligence may necessarily involve cryptanalysis (to decipher the messages). Traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling to whom and in what quantity—is also used to integrate information, and it may complement cryptanalysisThis obsession with security is a sign of a democratic and social system that has ground to a halt; Loïc Wacquant was already highlighting this situation back in 2004: ‘The penal state develops where the welfare state withdraws’. It is a veritable headlong rush, coupled with the art of making people believe that action is being taken; it does not protect, but rather numbs and obscures the real solutions: prevention, education and social justice. …social movements are no longer treated as legitimate political expressions, but as threats to be contained, disturbances to be suppressed, risks to be eliminated. A succession of police custody and summary court appearances, preventive detention, bans on demonstrations, administrative dissolutions of organisations, severe criminal charges, and the use of anti-terrorism legislation against activists: … Social conflicts are being redefined: they are no longer political disagreements, but are presented as public order issues….

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

We are not there, yet, in Norway, mainly because there is virtually no dissent. Our authorities wisely allowed us to voice our outrage about the treatment of Palestinians, they even agreed with us! They declared they recognised the State of Palestine! (Look to Norway, Starmer!).

But they have convinced us so completely that Russia has evil designs that even I am silent except in writing, here, under the name of Pelshval.

Journalism is a popular field of study. Only the best students are admitted, and requirements are stringent. What I am trying to say is that Norwegian journalists are neither stupid nor ignorant. But what they are telling us about the Ukraine war is hogwash.

Whereas I have absolutely no proof of censorship, I believe there can be no doubt about it. How that censorship has been put in place remains to be discovered.

By the way, SIGINT, which is an important tool for the secret services, means Signals intelligence-gathering, which can include communication between people (COMINT) and “traffic analysis” the study of who is signaling to whom and in what quantity. Journalists are very aware of the use of SIGINT.

Glenn Diesen

04.08.2026 /

Jeg abonnerer på Glenn Diesens “substack” og noterer at han i løpet av hans siste substack-samtaler med ulike personer – de fleste høyt plasserte i systemet og med imponerende CV-er – har virket gladere og friskere enn jeg tidligere har sett ham. Det er nok ikke pga verdenssituasjonen at latteren sitter løst, for vi nærmer oss stadig katastrofen, både militært, økonomisk og økologisk. Jeg tipper Glenn Diesen rett og slett er på ferie.

Det som hele tiden har kjennetegnet hans analyser, er at han ønsker å vurdere de to store krigsskueplassene – Ukraina og Vest-Asia (aka Midtøsten) — fra ulike vinkler. Derfor representerer hans samtalepartnere ulike ideologiske ståsteder, høyst ulike fagfelt og ulike syn. Det de har til felles er at de ønsker at stridsspørsmålene var blitt håndtert diplomatisk heller enn militært. De fleste av dem er nok også enige i at Russlands angrep i 2022 ikke var uprovosert, altså at krigen faktisk ble framprovosert (av USA/NATO).

Selv har Glenn Diesen for det meste stilt seg undrende til utviklingen. Han har stilt det Chas Freeman kaller “veldig kompliserte spørsmål”, og vi som lytter hører først og fremst på motpartens lange svar – utlegninger, nærmest foredrag. Jeg vet ikke hvor mange som følger ham, men jeg har hørt ham omtalt som en av Norges globalt mest kjente personer. Samtalepartnerne er i det siste begynt å avslutte med kommentarer som “keep up the good work”. Som nordmann er jeg definitivt stolt av ham. Han er ikke bare klok, men også modig. Når jeg nå kl 12 den 4. august ikke ser annet fra ham i dag enn en ganske kort notis, håper jeg han nå nyter en velfortjent behagelig pause fra verdenssituasjonen.

Den korte notisen hans forteller meg ingenting jeg ikke vet, men den oppsummerer noe som burde vært kringkastet fra alle tak, fra alle prekestoler og fra alle minareter: NATO og EU ønsker ikke – gjentar IKKE – fred med Russland, har aldri ønsket fred med Russland.

Aldri før har jeg hørt eller sett ham rette en så anklagende finger mot noen, ikke en gang mot Trump. De fem små avsnittene er rett og slett en liste med det NATO og EU har gjort for å fremprovosere og vedlikeholde denne krigen, koste hva det koste vil, for Ukraina og for oss andre.

Derimot har han enda ikke forklart hvorfor EU/NATO så desperat ønsker at krigen skal fortsette. Det er det bare én av hans samtalepartnere som har gjort, nemlig Alex Krainer. Og forleden dag tok også den prominente økonomen Jeffrey Sachs bladet fra munnen et annet sted:

What this means in practice is that Wall Street, military contractors, Silicon Valley, and Big Oil control American foreign policy to maximize elite wealth and access to global resources, supply chains, and strategic choke points. The rest of the world is to fall in line.”

Det dreier seg altså om klassekamp. Personlig gir jeg blanke i hva Marx, Lenin, Mao og for den del Darwin – hele kostebinderiet av gamle guruer – skal ha sagt: Men det er klart som dagen at en liten gruppe mennesker har langt mer makt enn det vi blir fortalt på skolen og at de bruker den makten til å tjene egne interesser på bekostning av alle andres. Dette med at det drypper på klokkeren er en løgn vi er blitt foret med alt for lenge.

Og pressen som liksom skulle avsløre ting og tang, er ubrukelig.

One to rule them all

01.08.2026 /

Actually, the line runs, “one Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them, one Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them,” and is taken from Lord of the Rings.

I asked my favourite AI service how many people have seen the Lord of the Rings films or read the book, and I am glad to report that AI was flummoxed by my question. It had no idea how many people had read the book. True, it could report that “The films have been seen by roughly 300 million+ people in theaters alone”, but of course it had no idea, either, of how many people had streamed the films at home.

I feel a need to add, that much as they are made to appear human, AI services don’t have “ideas”, and that I, being human and therefore easily deluded, fell into the trap of imagining for a moment that my interlocutor was sentient.

We are all, like it or not, susceptible to information warfare. And information warfare is being waged. We don’t see much about it in the news, but it is even more important than the news items we do see – strikes here, strikes there – missiles, drones and whatnot. President Lyndon B. Johnson allegedly said, referring to Vietnam: “the ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there”. I add, though nobody has asked me, that the ultimate victory will depend on our hearts and minds.

Lord of the Rings is basically about good versus evil. Most of us, according to the saga, ascribe to the good side, though we may indulge in our little sins. The bad side, however, is the ruler of Mordor, the unbelievably cruel Sauron whose subjects fear him and do his bidding out of terror, and whose armies – the Orcs – are without soul.

It goes without saying that Sauron’s mission was not to serve his people, which is allegedly the mission of presidents and prime ministers in the political west. Obviously, even warmongers such as Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Starmer, Merz, Stoltenerg and Rutte cannot be compared to a Sauron. Not even Netanyahu is a Sauron, (though he certainly is the most sinister character I have heard about, excepting perhaps Hitler). They all claim to “serve” the good cause. At worst they might be compared to the self-aggrandising figure of Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert just before WWI, who also claimed to serve the good cause.

Lord of the Rings shares a template with much of Hollywood’s film production. And Hollywood, as we should know by now, together with popular music, serves as the basis for the US grip on hearts and minds all over the world.

Now that grip is slipping a little. Here in Norway, people are saying that President Trump is “just simply too much”. They hadn’t noticed the Dick Cheyneys and the Lindsey Grahams, and most of them hadn’t even noticed the continuous string of wars waged by the USA even since before they were born. Most people are busy just getting along, passing exams, earning a living, feeding their kids and enjoying maybe an hour’s rest before bed, in front of their television screens, ref. panem et circenses.

Night after night – year in year out – in front of the screen, watching the good guys triumphing over the bad guys… Listen to the Raiders March (composed by John Williams). It epitomises US self-satisfaction and confidence – hubris, as some would say. We hear the determined beat of boots bravely going off to defend a good cause. Since the cause is good, they are joined, of course by others – it’s the American way, don’t you know – as more and more boots march on, until thousands and thousands are surging ahead on their way to the battlefield. We don’t hear much of the battle itself – a dreamlike sequence – but eventually, the original theme emerges once again, victorious: crowds are cheering, flags are waving, brilliant sunlight is reflected off gleaming trumpets, etc.

Year in year out. This sort of treatment cannot fail to have an effect, not only on US citizens, but on all the political West. We are all brothers and sisters, we are all on the good side, the side of Democracy, liberty, justice. Almost all: Netanyahu, also in the “American camp”, is merely an aberration, a mutant so to speak, whom we never really noticed until now, though he has been there, biding his time all along.

Only now that BRICS is threatening the position of the reserve currency, only now has Netanyahu’s moment finally come. Why? Because the US is losing its grip, and with the US, the entire political West has, as Alex Krainer puts it, hit the iceberg. Desperate manoeuvres are required. The people in charge are starting to panic, while most of the passengers are obliviously sleeping or being served by well-behaved waiters as the orchestra plays popular tunes such as Raiders’ March.

Many analysts and commentators expect a serious depression, but nowhere have I seen an explanation of how and why that depression will occur until I heard Alex Krainer’s eminently comprehensible account. He also explains how the political West’s defence of “the good cause” is as fictitious as Lord of the Rings. We can of course hope that he is wrong. On the other hand, he might just be right.

« Older posts

© 2026 Pelshval

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑