A Macabre Display

The Finnish capital Helsinki has recieved a display of a Russian destroyed tank on one of the central squares. It is said to be one of the T-72 tanks stopped by the Ukranians last year during the early days of the Russian “special operation” near Kiev. RIA Novosti, the official Russian goverment endorced news channel has reported, that Finns are spontaneously placing flowers and candles at the wreckage to commemorate the Russian soldiers who died inside. The spokesperson of the Friends of Ukraine society, that brought the wreck from Estonian capital Tallin, to remind the Finns of the ongoing war, said the Russian speaking social media in Finland has been telling people to bring flowers to the tank, but that the society and Ukrainan refugees have been busy cleaning them away. Russian goverment gave a diplomatic note to the Finnish government for allowing this hatefull display.

Likely the Finnish government had nothing to do with the incident. It is the city officials who allowed this. I am guessing because they were affraid of the potential bad publicity and rage in social media, if they had disallowed it, or simply because the descision was over their capabilities to evaluate reprecussions. In free countries public displays and demonstrations are generally allowed, if they do not cause exessive disturbance, or have an illegal hatefull message. So, it is possible there was nothing anybody could do to stop the tank being set up. Possibly everybody involved thought, that the message it sends is important and fair.

When I served in the Finnish military our pool of main battle tanks consisted of the T-72 tanks. I rode one of them myself on occasion and I knew some of the boys who rode those magnificent beasts. Now, if they had died in combat within their chariot and their death trap was put on display in some city square, I would find that enormously hurtfull, but not at all discouraging of fighting the people who did that. On the contrary, it would anger me.

We do not know, if the Russian soldiers who died inside the tank were willing participants in the criminal attack. Most likely they did not even know they were going to join such an atack before their orders came through. They were propably just serving their country in good faith and they were betrayed by their leaders. They are to be counted among the victims of this mad war and the victims of Putin, the real criminal behind this atrocity. The display of their tank is not far removed from dragging their bodies through a city for the mob to vent anger and fear on them. It is barbaric.

I support Ukraine in their struggle and I think our government should do more, even if it meant depleting some of our stored artillery ammo, despite the fact, that we are a nation bordering Russia. Russian army is busy and has it’s hands full in Ukraine – and we should keep it that way, for our own sakes, for the sake of Ukraine and for the sake of democracy and peace everywhere. Better yet, we should give the Ukrainean forces a fighting chance to beat our common enemy, because Fascism and attacks on other sovereign nations must be repelled, or the greedy evil of this world will see no end to their ambitions to further their interrests at the cost of the freedom of others. That said, I do not think it was ever the Finns, or the Estonians, of all nations that needed to be reminded about the war. We have been living in the shadow of Mordor for generations. To me the tank wreckage was not only an unnecessary and distasteful presentation, but potentially a harmfull display of hate and bitterness. The Russian government building their propaganda image of the West, Estonia and Finland as the enemies of Russia and Russian people are the only winners in this macabre display.

 

Moral Posing

The newly appointed minister of interior Mari Rantanen here in Finland told, that the “moral posing” is going to stop now that our annual refugees quota of 1000 asylum seekers is about to be halved down to 500. I wonder what she meant? The concept seems to be thrown around these days and it is like the people using it have not understood themselves what they are on about. For example our minister here, if she thought her predesessors were merely posing at virtue by allowing a 1000 asylum seekers – as was implied in the rest of her speech – then how does halving the number end the posing? Posing alludes to those predesessors being not at all interrested in helping anyone, merely playacting a virtuous behaviour. How could she possibly know the inner motivations of them? On the other hand, if she really thinks the 1000 people were not really helped, only used for posing, then how are the 500 going to be helped? It is more like the 1000 were taken – from a genuine enough – will to help, while the 500 are going to be taken in just for posing purposes and not out of any will to help. So, “moral posing” is not about to stop, rather begin.

Perhaps she got mixed up in her words – new as she is to her position? I must admit, I doubt that. I think it more likely, she just parroted a clever sounding concept to her voters, who have gotten used to such hatefull messages within their right-wing social circles (where people are not seen as equal, but the rich are seen as “deserving” more, and the asulym seekers as troublemakers and somehow the ignoramuses impressed by such jargon feel entiteled by loath being spewn at immigrants, gays, or whomever). In those social circless where these populist leaders are never challenged, as they serve fear, hate and biases to the stupid and ignorant of the land, who would not know morals, if it kicked them in the butt. Now she is a minister and the media should not let her off as easily, yet we already know how that plays out. If she is ever held accountable for her words, she may play the victim and complain, that the “mainstream media” is harassing her.

It is interresting how this sort of terminology has hit the mark in politics. Apparently there is a voter base who are annoyed by other people and politicians especially presenting any sort of moral behaviour and find it easier to simply label it as “posing”. Is it out of some sort of inferiority complex from not really being able to know what exactly is moral? Such comments and use of terminology as by the brand new minister are, however quite revealing. If you have doubts, for not having heard the entire speech (for I do not intend to translate such garbage), consider the fact, that she also singled out Christians from Syria and said they are still wellcome. I wellcome them also, but to me it appears as some sort of moralist posing to say people are wellcome, while at the same time making it harder for them.

Is “moral posing” not what we used to call setting an example? Certainly it appears like that in most, if not all, cases when people have been accused of it.

What do you think “moral posing” even means?

 

Trans

There is a new law on gender transition going through the final stages in Finland. The new law is to replace the previous one, that is 20 years old. The old law required that the person wanting to transit from one gender to a nother went through psychological evaluation, complex medical process and had to be sterile. The new law requires none of these things. It simply makes the entire thing into a self proclatory event.

The new gender will be changed to all official documents that mention gender and that’s it. Only adults may make the change for themselves.

Rather surprisingly the opposition to this new law from Conservative parliamentary representatives has been pointed at two very specific points in the law:

1. That young men might transition just to avoid mandatory military service.

2. That men might transition just to get to peek at public saunas on the womens side.

As you can see these issues are very Finnish in nature – and extremely stupid (wich is less surprising, considering what values their suggesters hold).

If a youth wishes to avoid military service, all they need to do is either serve in civil service duties, such as in a library, hospital, in the firedepartment, kindergarten, or old folks home, OR they can go total and refuse to serve at all in wich case they have to have a tribunal and carry a locator collar around their ankle for a year and stay at their home community for that period. They could also join Jehowas Wittnesses, who enjoy a special discompensation not to serve. Far easier options, than a change of their gender, with all included implications, I’m sure. Besides, if any person would be willing to use this as an evasion of military training, how effective combatant would they make anyway? This kind of stupidity, that the representatives have showed, reveals the malice in their nature. They do not seem to see military, or civic service as a communal thing done out of responsibility towards the common good, but as some sort of a punishment for having been born an able bodied man.

It is essentially of the same nature, as when some Conservatives demand pregnant women not to have an abortion because they need to be punished for having sex. As a punishment having been born a woman. As if punishment was the driving force of society.

The sauna issue is just as alien to reality. There are separate compartments for men and women in a lot of public saunas, but it is also not uncommon at all, that the Finns go to sauna totally naked together regardless of gender. By far most families do so. Groups of friends do so. Working buddies do so. University fraternies do so and so on and so on. Lots of people learn to know each other in sauna. If anyone missbehaves they are thrown out and are never wellcome again. We can not set laws based on every potential weirdo and imaginable perversion, to limit our lives. If anyone misbehaves in a public sauna, there are employees there to remove and ban them. If the misbehaviour is severe there are the police and judical systems to deal with such individuals. If a person does not want to be seen naked by anyone, or someone that might have sexual desire towards them, they have the option of not attending a public sauna. There are no laws to restrict lesbians attending female only saunas and any such would be impossible to enforce. What people feel inside their heads, what desires they have, are private matters, while how they behave can be restricted and limited.

You may think your particular god disaproves transgenderism and you may even find some confirmation to this from your holy scriptures (though I doubt it), but in a secular society nobody gets to make laws, that restrict your behaviour according to what they think your, or their own god disapproves. If you find it very important to live in a country, where this sort of thing is forbidden and the weather is mostly cold, like in Finland, you might want to consider moving to Russia.

Now, you may point out, as your opinion, that transgenderism is not natural, but we do not evaluate what is moral, or indeed set laws according to what is percieved “natural”, or not, but according to a harm vs. benefit analysis. As a phenomenon in human culture it is as ancient as gender roles are. We have record of stone age cultures, such as some Native American hunter gatherer groups, having had people transitioning from gender related roles. So, airline traffic, or driving a car are far less “natural” human behaviour. Do you want to forbid those?

You might claim transgenderism is harmfull, because it causes emotional trauma and that plastic surgery should not be used to repair mental problems. Be that as it may, I would call you out on hypocricy, if you were not demanding abolition of all plastic surgery, based on the same line of argumentation. In any case, the mental trauma driving some people to transition has already happened and we have no other treatment, than to let them be how they see and feel themselves. It is their private matter and if it affects others, so be it. If others get anxiety from the change in those individuals, then the problem is in the head of the person feeling anxiety and repairable by a change. Nobody is demanding anybody else transitions from their percieved gender. Ultimately this new law diminishes the pressure transitioning people may feel to take the step to have surgery, as it emphasises less of the physical gender and focuses on the emotional perception people have about themselves.

The entire phenomenon seems to stem from strict perceptions of gender roles. Stereotypes of behaviour indoctrinated to us from a very early age onwards. Pre-expectations on an individual based on nothing, but genital organs. As if those ultimately defined us, what and who we can be. In reality by far most differences percieved between the genders are cultural concepts. The differences that do exist are mostly averages. The biggest difference is, that no man can give birth and no woman can impregnate, but not all women give birth and not all men impregnate. In both groups you have plenty of people who could not, even if they would. Our masculinity and femininity are not defined by even these biggest of nominating differences, so in my opinion we should grow up about this issue and stop defining each other by such arbitrary ways of grouping people. These roles and expectations clearly cause harm and anxiety to a lot of people and not much good has come out of them yet. However, because the vast majority of us thinks the roles are important to them and provide a sense of identity to them, as if they had nothing more personal to build their identity on, the least we can do is to release others from superimposed roles they do not feel comfortable in.

In my opinion the gender identification in any official documents is pointless. Here in Finland we could just get rid of it and make military/civic service mandatory to all citizens.

 

Do You Trust the Media?

I have recently run into several people, who tell me they do not trust the media. By what they mean big media companies, networks and newspapers. It appears many of them have lost faith in these institutions over a course of fairly short time span. One of them expressed, that the young do not believe everything they are fed by the media, but I do not think this is an age related issue, as such.

Many people who come from countries, where authoritarian governments controll the media, by persecuting and even killing journalists not abiding to the official “truth” have a somewhat justified mistrust in the major media. Many such people live in exile in countries where they do not understand the language to follow local or even international news. To some of them the customs and majority values are so alien, that despite of having a safe haven in their adopted country, they find hard to fit in and trust all what the surrounding culture has to offer. For such people news often come from social media, or other rumours in their immideate family, friends and compatriots in exile.

Today, however, there are plenty of people who have grown up in western democracies, where freedom of speech and freedom of press have been long held in high esteem. Why have people in such conditions lost their trust in media houses, that boast long tradition of journalistic integrity? Is it because of the modern digital format of news, that they are so rushed, that the fact checking is at times poor before publishing? Could it be, that in commercial interrests competition has led to a point where some news providers are more interrested in providing people with a perspective to news items a certain major consumer segment would like to hear, as opposed, or at least regardless, of the facts? It is easy to provide people angles to news items, that fulfil their expectations, preconceptions, fears and biases. The world is changing rapidly and nowhere is this more evident, than in the news. Especially to people who hold values simply assumed from parents and never dared, or having had tools to test them, is this constant change a frightenin thing. For as our understanding grows as we learn new things, it affects the facts we know, knew, or thought we knew and thus our values.

Where do the people who have lost their trust to “the mainstream media” get their newsfeed then? Entertainment tangles a lot in everyday news events. It is often produced with commercial interrest, or a value based political interrest and paints a very specific picture of events and public figures. As far as I can tell to many their newsfeed comes from all sorts of politically inclined small time media, whose commitment to factual reporting and resources to actually achieve any are limited, or unknown, but replaced with all the more political fervour. Some of their news appear to come from the social media rumours and as the digital platform offers a chance for any opinionated moron – myself included – to spout out their version of the “truth”, these two sources get mixed up.

 

Liberty & Vaccinations

Especially now with the pandemic of Covid-19 the subject of freedom has surfaced about the liberty of the individual to refuse to take a vaccination. Already in 1830 the tsar of the Russian Empire and grand duke of Finland opposed forced vaccination, when the Finnish administrator of medicine suggested, that the Finns were not taking enough vaccinations to repell the smallpox. In them days, when the tsar said something, then it really was not just some sort of wish, but his high command and it was followed decisevely. The tsar argued, that such a forced action would have been against the law of the land. I guess he was a fairly liberal minded tsar.

The campaign against smallpox did not go well. Only about 60% of the people in Finland had taken the vaccination and further enlightment of the people on the subject, despite the efforts of the state Lutheran church and it’s local priesthood, did not come to fruition. Eventually in 1883 a nother tsar yilded to the demands of medical personnel and a law was set, that that those refusing vaccinations would suffer to pay a fine. In some hundred years from that the smallpox was declared a defeated disease in the world.

Of course it was not simple as that. The fine however, led to the increase of vaccination in this small dukedome – soon to become a nation – to some 80%, wich was enough to form herd immunity. The reasons for people to refuse the vaccination in them days were mainly about the ignorance and fear, but also the difficulties in long distances, when many in the rural areas lived far away from any doctors, let alone vaccinations. The distances and isolated small communities had also protected people and that was one of the reasons why it was at the same time hard to reach the herd immunity, but also the treshold to reach it was fairly low and 80% was enough. The struggle to eradicate the disease alltogether was not fought in one small country, but was a global effort, altough this small country was at the forefront of the struggle at one time. In many ways the Dukedome of Finland was a training ground for many liberal and less than liberal policies, the tsars wanted to first test out before putting them into action among the larger population of the Empire and since many of those new policies were in the end movement towards a better society, Finland benefited from them.

Liberty is a great ideal and we should drive towards it, but when we are talking about it, we should always consider it within context. The most important context being, who gets to do what to whom. It should not be the liberty of anyone to exploit others.

Today some of the most voulnerable people in modern society have been subjected to a campaign of fear against vaccinations. All sorts of vaccinations. There is miss- and dissinformation readily awailable to satisfy the preconceptions of the unscientificly minded – who are (I am sorry to say) prone to believe in their own preconceptions, because they have no method to evaluate reality around them, exept by their own bias and values not based on cause and effect analysis as much as just behaviorial models. The false information on about any subject from the shape of the world to the age of the world and the reliability of vaccinations is to be found from the internet right beside the actual and researched information, but often in much easier format to assume and approach, relying in on and mixed with traditional values and indeed the fears of people.

The negative claims, as I have run into, about vaccinations are based on both obvious lies, such as that they cause the most bizarre side effects, or even are part of some plot to plant surveilance devices on people (as if most of those people did not already carry a smart phone in their pocket) and on precisely the sort of black and white thinking, that makes people voulnerable to propaganda. By making the as such true claim, that the vaccinations are not foolproof, or even not nearly as effective as we would hope for, simple people can be somehow persuaded to flip the scales all the way to think they are not only uneffective, but down right dangerous by the Russian troll set out to cause confusion and polarization in western societies and by the political populist appealing to the most scared part of any population – because that is what they do to gain popularity. The general laziness of people to do anything combined with such fearmongering propaganda is a dangerous mix, even without the quak, who tries to sell his snakeoil. One of the most obvious misunderstandings about vaccinations seems to be based on the selfishness as a motivator of values in general. The limited scope of thinking, that oneself may not directly benefit from being vaccinated. Vaccinations however, are based very much on the protection we give to each other as members of a society, not only to ourselves as individuals, wich is why it is important for young healthy people to get vaccinations to diseases, that are mostly dangerous to the old and frail.

As a result, of political propaganda the number of various vaccinations, such as even the one against measles, has gone down and naturally the number of cases has gone up. A very dangerous development both to health and to democracy. Because the more insane a political movement gets, the more likely the supporters of it are going to become fanatical about it, and the fanaticism of a critical mass may move the goal posts of values and as such societies towards the sort of madness, that will make the world a worse place instead of better.

 

2nd Amendment

“They are trying to take our guns!”

In light of years of school shootings, staggering numbers of all sorts of gun related violence, and tragicomic amount of gun related accidental deaths, one might expect the US government and judical system might take a nother look at the regulatory laws on gun ownership. One could expect, that the frequent and needless deaths of children at least would have evoked a nationwide and fairly universal popular demand to set better laws to regulate guns more. Alas no. There are wide swathes of people with enough presence of mind to have done all this and even a few presidents who have tried to address the problem, but they have achieved hardly anything. Why?

“In countries where the government has all the guns, tyranny and dictatorship reign.”

The excuses people give in defence of their “constitutional right to bear arms” are mind numbingly stupid. These seem to be either appeals to personal insecurity due to a society where crime is abundant and every numbskul might be toting a piece, or insecurity about the chance that their own government might turn into tyranny and it needed to be opposed by the citizenry. One would think that the solution to the first source of fear would quite obviously involve attempts to develope a more efficient police force, a more equal society with less desperate people to turn to crime and at very least better regulation of guns, but for some reason there are plenty of people, who do not see any of those as solutions. Instead they would arm the teachers. The second problem stems from the time when the US constitution was written. It was made by revolutionaries wary of a global empire they were braking of from, in a time when the native nations of America were still strong and the firearms mentioned had not seen rapid development from the flintlock musket in over a hundred years. The “founding fathers” had very little reason to expect weaponry to change in the foreseeanble future. Certainly they could not pass laws concerning modern automatic firearms, or what the future may hold for us in that regard. Their concern about armed militias was a question of federal army being too weak to protect the land but powerfull enough to set up a dictatorship. The modern US military is one of the most powerfull and certainly the most expensive armed forces on the planet. It really does not require any help from some random militias and even less from some individual gun owners. None of the reasons it remains unused to set up a dictatorship in the USA is a deterrence of the abundance of gun owners in the country. Any insurrection based on the efforts of random dudes weilding their AR-15 rifles would propably be fairly one sided and short lived.

“Criminals can always get illegal guns.”

Where do illegal guns come from? They were all at some point legal. There are no hidden factories making illegal guns from scrap metal anywhere. Many illegal guns are left over from wars and smuggled across borders. Those are mostly military grade assault weapons professional criminals use, but weapons smuggling is a risky business, though profitable. But hey, why make aquiring guns difficult for the would be criminal? Just sell them what they want at the local supermarket. Many illegal guns come from burglaries. A weapon in the house is not a deterrence, rather an incentive for a burglary, even in places where anybody can just step into a shop and buy one without any backround checks. Just like jewellery is an incentive for burglary in places where they are readily awailable in shops. The guns used at school shootings are however hardly ever illegal. The disturbed individuals who decide to commit a suicide by proxy and go to a school, or some other public place to shoot at some innocent bystanders most often got their assault weapons legally from the shelf of a store, or from some relative or other who had their guns legally even though they were happles enough to keep their automatic guns not in locked steel cabinets (as required in many countries) but at something like their night desk – I guess for children to find and play with it.

“from my dead cold hands…”

From the excuses given to not restrict gun ownership in the USA it becomes obvious, that the underlying reasons come from fear. That makes the discussion difficult, because the people who defend the all extending “right” to bear arms do it from a deeply emotional standpoint. They have abandoned reason to the extent, that they do not want to discuss various options, rather their view is this fierce black and white set up, where the options are reduced to everybody should be able to have a gun, or none at all. Their world seems to not hold the option of restricting guns from people who obviously can not handle the responsibility of carrying kone . This raises the question of how many of them are so dangerous imbecils, that indeed they do have every right to fear the possibility of being the type of people who would and should not be allowed to own a gun, if ever the licence to carry a gun (as in the rest of the western countries) was restricted.

 

NATO & Finland

Finland has now applied to join NATO. Honestly I would not have guessed this just few months ago. Not even despite the Russian invasion and annexation of the Crimean peninsular. All my adult life this issue has been discussed as if the decision would only be made after a referendum and joining NATO was never very popular for rather obvious reasons. We are a self reliant nation and keeping good relations to our eastern neighbour has been a political and economic virtue. The last time Finland relied on western help it all went sour fast. When Finland was attacked in the Winter War, western powers promised to help, but what ever help came, it was too little too late. When the fighting stopped Britain had the nerve to ask back the tanks only half of wich (some 30 in total) had been delivered, even though Finland had paid for them. Then Finland found itself in the same camp with Nazi-Germany, all the while the western powers had failed to stand up to their assurances of protection to Poland. Eventually Finns had to drive out the Nazies.

NATO has appeared as belligerent and obsolete alliance of not equal partners. The USA has played the role of leader, simply because it is the biggest spender. Some of her presidents have appeared as not at all reliable partners and indeed it is a country that openly declares wars appealing to its “interrests abroad”. Often those interrests are of economic nature to benefit their super rich capitalists (oligarchs). During the Trump administration the popularity of joining NATO hit the bottom in Finland because he – deliberately, or by sheer ignorance and stupidity – presented himself as an unpredictable type of leader. To any enemies, that may seem dangerous, but to all allies it appears as unreliable. Finland is and has been an ally of both the US and NATO as a peace time partner, but not a member of an alliance. The Finnish military has sought to unify it’s equipment and methods of leadership to those used by other western countries. Partly to be ready, if the desicion to join NATO was ever made, but also just to be able to better work in international joint operations, such as in Afganistan (and what a success that turned out to be). A lot of cheap solid and reliable weaponry has been bought from the Soviet Union, especially before her fall and from Germany after that, when Finland emphasized neutrality as a means of survival policy, but it also allowed us a role as a mediator and a dealer of peace. Finnish soldiers have succesfully acted as UN peacekeepers around the globe, while militaries of major powers have failed to bring peace, or even victories over smaller developing countries. Politically Finland has “kept the doors open for joining” for decades, but because of the unpopularity of it, it has not looked to join into NATO.

Suddenly everything changed. The Russians invaded Ukraine with the most absurd and obscure excuses. Any one of those could have been used to justify an attack on Finland. The general opinion turned totally around and media stopped referring to NATO as a military alliance, rather they now speak of it in terms of defensive alliance.

I guess it is ultimately a good thing, that the Russians finally forced us to make this desicion and in so rapid timespan, because now there seems to be a political and national consensus on an issue, that has divided us for ages and could have turned into an ugly cause for polarization, if a referendum had been organized and people would have joined their identities to one or the other side. Ironically one of the Russian excuses least absurd for their invasion was to stop eastward expansion of NATO. If and when Finland enters the coalition, Finland will become the frontline and battleground for any possible future war between Russia and NATO. A problem most Finns seem to have not thought. Putin has responded minimally only by saying that the joining is a “mistake” on part of Finland and that it is not important, because Finland was already a partner of the NATO. Of course, that is what the Kreml has to say, because otherwise they would appear as total nincompoops for not anticipating this development and especially so as their forces are tied in Ukraine. For the attack there they had to take units of their standing army from Finnish border. In that sense the war in Ukraine has provided Finland a unique opportunity to join NATO.

What remains to be seen, is wether Turkey is going to let Finland join and how will Russia respond. The current Finnish coalition government consisting mainly of socialists and the greens, is not likely to compromise our understanding of human rights and both Finnish and international law by handing Kurds to Turkey just because they are regarded terrorists by the Turks.

 

A Day of Victory?

The great victory over the Third Reich and end of that Fascist regime in Europe deserves remembering. The Russians still do celebrate, but do they remember what it was, that was overcome all those decades ago?

President Putin has been throwing around accusations of Fascism and demanded for some obscure “de-nazification” of Ukraine. If he really was so posed against Nazies, he could have started at a lot closer to home, like for example from the founder and boss of Putins own private military contractor mr. “Wagner” of Wagner mercenaries (Russian equivalent of Blackwater) who is an unashamed Neo-Nazi and even has tatooed a couple of runic s-letters on his neck. Or perhaps the president could have looked for a fascist even closer, simply by looking into a mirror. For what else is it, if not Fascism, pure and simple, that there hardly is any free press in Russia and that dissidents will be murdered? All the traditional values he has appealed to are at core more or less Fascistic, because they are against plurality and the individual freedom of the person. His vision of family values is an attack against sexual minorities and the equality of women.

The casus belli of the war in Ukraine is bogus and ordinary Russians should be able to see that. Do they? Sometimes it seems, that every time Russians as a nation have to make a choise between two options, they invariably choose the worst one. Authoritarianism over democracy again and again. However encrusted the Russian media is by propaganda, they must see, that their president is engaged in crazy talk that has almost no connection to the real world.

One thing the Russians hate is a perception of a weak leader. They loved their Brezhnev for pumping up their military budget at the cost of everything else, but they hated Gorbatshov for stating out loud the obvious, that they had failed at building the Communist state. The Russians have ousted their rulers before because of lost, or badly going wars. Perhaps they will now. Though l doubt it.

 

A Theory About of a Conspiracy

The internet has enabled the fast spreading of all sorts of conspiracy theories, from the moonlandings being staged to evolution theory being a lie set against religious faith and from flat earthers to the Q-onanists starting, from the “Pizza-Gate” that must have originally been a joke, growing into a political movement, that tried to overthrow the US government.

Last few years have seen the spread of anti-vaccination dis- and misinformation. Now the very same social media networks (mostly consisting of happless individuals and not the members of some grand conspiracy) have spread obscure claims about the war in Ukraine. We are looking at fairly obvious Russian propaganda with made up claims about US funded biology laboratories in Ukraine. The idea is to sell supsettible people in the West some vague justification for the Russian agression. While there are such laboratories in Ukraine, they are not designing biological weapons, as claimed by these rumours. If they were, just about the most stupid thing to do, would be to attack them with missiles, like the very same social media rumours claim Russians to have done, because that would risk compromizing the facilities and the alledged bio-weapons to escape and spread among the population. Instead of precision strikes on labs creating WMD, we have seen Russian missiles and artillery hit civillian housing, railway stations and theatres full of people.

The Russian military may be faltering, because their plans of attack have been made on bad intel about the ability of the Russian standing army and on the patriotism of the Ukrainan people. However, their “troll factories” have fared far better in charting out the most voulnerable element in western civilization. They are the disgruntled conservative right-wingers under populist political influence. People who demand their very freedom of speech is threatened if anybody questions their opinions. Opinions based on hearsay, rumours and propaganda of their irrisponsible leaders, who have a tendency to appeal to the worst of human emotions, such as base fear in the issue of immigration. They have rendered the whole question into a non discussable form, because it has given the nationalists and “ethno-nationalists” (racists) somehing to identify to and thus they cannot face it without a volume of emotion.

The nationalist conservatives are perfect victims for this sort of influencing, because their position tells any intelligent individual, that their obviously clumsy use of logic has led them to the dead end of tribal moralism. This means they already have a diminished ability to recognise it when they are fed propaganda, or when they are used to further obscure political agenda, or even personal ambition of a populist leader. They are perfect victims for this sort of propaganda also because they feel disenfranchsed, as if robbed of the wonderful life described in commercials. No expensive car that gives a sesation of liberty (in a real life traffic jam). No beautiful body, or spouse to wich hang all those fashionable clothes on, just to show the neighbours. They are like some silly atavists, or remnants of a bygone era, that promised them priviledges based on accident of birth to a particular nation, or skin colour, that never came to be and who else to blame, but those who oppose priviledges and strive for equality.

There are, of course, other as easy target audiences, like people who have interrest for alternative “medical” treatments. Or even some people on the fringes of the political left, who have become disappointed at western democracies using power & influence to further capitalist interrests.

The alternative “medicine” is a conceptual trap. It often draws people who desire hope when facing a malady, or just the fear of one, that the medical science has no remedy for. This desperation makes them put aside scientific facts and opens the door for all sorts of “alternative facts”. Usually none of wich are facts at all.

To Putin it has been an ongoing campaing to undermine western democracies, because their succes sugsets, that his authoritarian leadership might not be the best option. He has supported the nationalist conservatives (often referred to as the far-right in Europe), as they do share his values, like homophobia, position of both church and women within the society and so forth. Mostly fascistic, anti-humanist stuff. Also because they sport the fading fossil fuel industry, on wich Russia depends. Mainly though because these movements are led by opportunistic populists who court with authoritarianism (because they have no moral compas to tell them why it is wrong) and because, win or lose, such behaviour undermines democracy. If the populists lose elections, they may continue growing by spreading evemore discontent and spreading lies, if they win they have more power to disrupt the society and when they ultimately fail to fullfill their promises, it only works to create more distrust in politics and democracy.

Ultimately democracy and the truth may prove to be more durable than Putin would want them to be. The Russians might get onto the streets and get rid of this authoritarian leader because of a failed war. They have done it before. Let us hope, that if they do, they shall not fall under yet another authoritarian leader.

 

Masked Corona

The pandemic has revealed how stupid and sheep-like many people really are. The surprizingly deep division between those who wear masks and those who do not is quite revealing. Generalizing with a rough hand, those on the left of the political spectrum worldwidely have mainly abided to what their societies demand of them while many of those on the right have declared indipendend thought and decided not to wear masks. Why?

What it boils down to is how people see the society. What values make a person to support or even identify with leftist or right-wing policies? Where do those values come from? The entire division to left and right in politics is a bit outdated. The Liberals of one country seem like left wing there, while their values may seem like coming from the right in a nother country. The Green parties in many western countries join in a lot of their core issues about nature preservation with Socialists, but may otherwise have very Market Liberal values and be seen as less leftist in that respect. The populist extreme right hold very Conservative values, but their answers to most issues are radical to say the least. Some of the Communist parties in the world today are – paradoxically – the most Conservative in their approach to politics. How could this mess ever be defined to have just one divisional line on any issue. Even such as a pandemic? Especially since the pandemic should not even be a political issue, but a medical issue.

Some people are simply ignorant. Some have been lied to. Some may seem like idiots, but simply are unable to confront threats too big for them to handle individually. Some follow an authority with blind sheep-like attitudes.

The issue about how the pandemic has been met around the globe and among population is in many ways about responsibility. People whose values are about putting their short term self interrest at the front every time do not feel responsible for others. People whose values are based on a long term responsibility to make the society and the world a better place for all, most often act accordingly. This is naturally a groce simplification between what we percieve the right or the left in politics, but if I try to put that division down in as simple terms as possible, this is what I get.

The issue of wearing masks kind of demonstrates this. In my experience it is the right-wing extremists who have told me, that the pandemic is a lie, because the governments of this world are in cohoots with “Big Pharma” and we are being herded into obidience by forcing us to wear the masks. There is even a member of the Finnish parliament who has made such claims, and even added that it is a plot by the Communists. Do not ask me, how he came to think the Communists are somehow able to pull this off, or how/why they have some affiliation with pharmaceutical industry. His thoughts have taken of on such a tangent, that even his populist party has kicked him out.

Others, less extreme right-wingers, have suggested to me, that there is no point in wearing the surgical masks, because they do not protect the wearer enough, or that at the very least one should use a better mask. This is exactly where their values crawl in to the discussion and affect their behaviour. It seems like they were somehow impeded from seeing the big picture, where if I wear a mask that protects the next man if I happen to sneeze or cough, and the next man wears a mask that protects me and so on, creates a situation where our individual protection does not even need to be of the highest quality. This failure in attitudes reminds me of a dude who thought it was OK for them to drive illegally fast and take unnecessary risks in traffic, because his own car had airbags. Putting aside how airbags do not necessarily protect him in a head on collision, it had not occurred to him, that the other car he may hit, might have a family in it, and that they might not have airbags. It was in his short term interrest to drive as he pleased, but he did not even care, how dangerous he made the traffic, let alone, what it would be like, if everybody behaved like him.

The right-wing policies and values in general are about the liberties of an individual and about holding to tradition. While these two would seem like at odds with each other at times, they spring from the same problem. The need to adhere to tradition provides a sense of security to a person who has problems of knowing what is right or wrong. Tradition offers them the answers, and if they think otherwise, traditions are handy in that they are flexible enough to be bent to their will. For example, somehow Jesus has been made into a character, who would support Capitalism and free ownership of military grade guns.

The constant demand for individual liberties is not the same as demand for individual rights. The demand for human rights often annoys the right-wing person in aggravating terms, to wich they these days react by sad and poor attempts at sarcasm, or even blatant hatered. Historically it used to be outright violence. Rights and liberties are not the same. Liberty is a beatifull word and everyone should be able to enjoy liberty, but not at the expense of the liberty of others. This is their right. Right as human beings. The same applies to the issue about the masks.

We do not ask the people whom we meet at shops or public transport, why some of them do or do not wear masks. We assume, that if someone does not wear a mask, it is because they are somehow medically, or otherwise impeded from joining in to this common effort to stop the disease from spreading. Some of them are impeded by healt issues, some are impeded by unhealthy attitudes and values.