Hur har ni det med den Nya Världsordningen (NWO)
Jag har under det senaste åren allt mer konfronterats med begreppen NWO – New World Order, den nya världsordningen. Och vad är det då, frågar man sig kanske ?
Det är den ryska propagandans kärnprogram just nu. Men det är inte bara Rysslands- och Putinvänner som tyr sig till NWO utan en hel del andra grupperingar och personer också. NWO ligger som den ideologiska grunden för den ”stora konspirationsteorin” i världen just nu. Allt fler nya begrepp och aktuella frågor kopplas ihop med den stora NWO-teorin hela tiden. Merparten av den gruppering med kufiska personer som anföll Capilolium i Washington för drygt 2 år sedan räknar sig hit, liksom statskuppmakarna i Tyskland som med ledning av sin riktige forne prins för några månader sedan åkte fast i Tysklands största enskilda polisrazzia sen kriget. Hit hör Coronaskeptikerna, vaccinmotståndarna. Och t.o.m. de som påstår att judarnas förintelseläger aldrig existerade under Hitlers regim i Tyskland på 1940-talet.
Det nyaste och mest aktuella som dessa NWO-typer propagerar för är åsikterna att det var USA och västländerna som provocerade fram det ryska anfallskriget mot Ukraina.
Jag stötte på de här människorna redan för några år sedan i Helsingfors. Då handlade om mina gamla goda kommunistvänner som under Coronapandemin (som aldrig existerat endligt dem) allt med framförde sitt stöd till Putin i Ukrainakriget. De flesta av dem blev vaccinmotståndare och coronaskeptiker, vilket innehär att de påstår att en riktig pandemi aldrig existerat utan att det är västländernas maktelit som trollat fram påståendena om pandemin för att bli rika på sina farliga vacciner som tvingades på människorna.
Jag har alltså stött på de här konspirationsteoretikerna dels via mina gamla kommunistvänner, som idag så ofta anammat konspirationsteorin enligt NWO men egentligen allra mest har jag stött på de här teorierna bland oss elöverkänsliga och speciellt bland den österbottniska fraktionen av oss. Jag talar alltså om oss och inte dem, för jag är ju elöverkänslig sedan 20 år vilket de flesta av er torde känna till sedan tidigare.
Att så många elöverkänsliga i just Österbotten fallit för konspirationsteorierna har väl att göra med att de rikssvenska influenserna alltid varit så starka i Österbotten. Vaccinmotståndare och -kritiker har det alltid funnits i Österbotten, också långt innan Coronan kom eller elöverkänsligheten utvecklades. Men nu smälter de här åsikterna alltså ihop till ett stort paket där alla dessa element ingår. Alla stöder ju inte öppet Putin i hans infernaliska krig mot Ukraina men de flesta av de här människorna tror eller tycker ändå att det är väst och USA som nog irriterat Ryssland så mycket att de varit tvungna att börja anfall Ukraina.
Hela vintern har jag fört intensiva debatter med de här människorna via e-post. Jag är inte med i några som helst sociala mediegrupper där den här diskussionens först mycket mer intensivt via en massa facebookgrupper.
Jag kan delvis förhålla mig kritisk själv också till vissa drag hos en del vaccinprogram men jag har aldrig fattat varför man då också skall stöda Putin i hans krig och till råga på allt gå med i påståendena om att judarnas förintelseläger aldrig var så farliga som det påstås under andra världskriget.
Jag känner mig rätt maktlös och kraftlös i de här diskussionerna. Vad jag än säger eller skriver lyckas konspirationsteoretikerna (enligt sig själva) omkullkasta mina påståenden.
Det jag nu insett är hur åsiktspolariseringen i USA och i de flesta andra länder också nu utvecklas och blir allt starkare. Det är skrämmande. NY TId och vänster borde våga gå ut öppet i kampen mot konspirationsteretikerna och -teorierna. Speciellt som de i hög grad också lutar sig mot kvasimarxistiska teorier.
Googla litet på NWO och allat annat skumt som kommer upp i samband med det.
Trumps anhängare ägnar kanske mycket energi åt ”den nya världsordningen”, men det beror på att de är emot den, inte för. För dem är det ”marxister” och ”pedofiler” som Biden, H Clinton, Obama, och förstås Soros, som kämpar för en ny ordning, där de vill konfiskera folks skjutvapen, tvinga dem att slänga ut sina gasspisar, könsbyta deras ungdomar och införa bilförbud i Golden Gateparken. Mm.
It was already yesterday that I was writing a rather long comment on this, but then the unruly courser of my old computer was hopping in some unexpected way, and the whole text disappeared. Thus, time for a new attempt (but better a bit shorter) … .
Political Psychology is so-to-say my hobby, which makes me also the main contributor to the Facebook group ”Political Psychology” (which is a Public group, thus accessible to anybody who wants to have a look – which I most warmly recommend …). And about the problem that growing numbers of people are joining the congregation of the believers in the NWO, I do see at least 2 possible factors: Factor (a) would be that (especially) people who are used to base their opinions on things which somebody else has said or written (an authority) will, once it has become clear that a formerly-accepted authority has been lying, turn away from it and choose another one (preferentially one which says something very different from what the previous one used to say), and factor (b) would be the way how their new opinion/belief is being reacted to by the representatives of a different (but well established) belief. An example of factor (b) would be, e. g., the current, widespread habit of labeling somebody of a different opinion as somehow mentally rubbed (think of the usual use of the term ”conspiracy theoretician”, and I could imagine that also persons who are suffering from elöverkänslighet are occasionally meeting such responses …). The feeling of being labeled as ”mentally rubbed” will easily be felt as condescending or even outright hostile, which in turn sets some mental mechanisms going in the head of the thus-treated person (see my text titled ”Confrontation Frenzy” of 25 April last year in the Facebook group): from a ”difference of opinion” becomes a ”confrontation”, during which the representatives of one opinion/belief tend to close their ranks against anything which comes from the representatives of the other opinion/belief, with the whole matter developing into a very black-and-white, and increasingly hostile affair. Which seems to fit with the observations about the present situation … .
An alternative to this less-than-helpful development would be to, instead of going by the sayings/writings of authorities, go by EVIDENCE. Which leads to the further problem from where to get such (especially from media which one anyway suspects of lying). It is certainly not any easy situation, but an attentive reader of the media may every now and then stumble over some revealing (?) detail(s) – and in order to decide whether they may IN FACT be revealing, the reader would then have to use her/his experience about the usual reactions of humans in a given situation (from here one of the uses of Political Psychology). To get an impression how such works I recommend the reader to have a look at my pieces ”The Fogs of (Information) War” of 13 March last year and ”A Case of Trustworthiness” of 12 February this year in the Facebook group. And I also feel like here mentioning a piece of information which I found just today ( 8 April) in my inbox: Chris Hedges (can be googled) was reporting that according to a report from 2022 the US media had the lowest credibility – 26 percent – among a sample of 46 nations. Which might result in a very large number of believers in something like the NWO, which in turn might (via the social media) develop into a trend also in other countries … .
In order to go still into at least the question whether the West was provoking Russia into invading Ukraine, this: If we want to apply established US standards what should be considered as something like an ”unacceptable political/military provokation” we can remember the situation of Cuba in the beginning of the 1960ies, when Castro had managed to get into power (in 1959), which the USA then thought a sufficient reason/justification for trying a military invasion at the Bay of Pigs (can be googled). The invasion failed, but the CIA tried reportedly afterwards a number of times to assassinate Castro, and if one wants to get an impression to what everything the CIA felt justified/entitled in its dealings with Castro’s Cuba one should google ”Operation Northwoods” (and honor to Kennedy for not permitting it …). – This far about Cuba (which nobody can claim that it was a serious threat to the USA), but if one wants a more fitting comparison to the Ukraine/Russia situation, one should try to imagine how the USA would react if Mexico (with its long border with the USA) would sign a military alliance with Russia or China. And in such a situation I could VERY well imagine that the USA would feel provoked into very drastic action against Mexico (by military means or by arranging a military putsch which might well also include some or many assassinations; we do remember Allende’s fate, do we?). Thus, yes, I do think that at least by American standards Russia WAS provoked into invading Ukraine. Which, though, does NOT mean that I would agree with the ”anti-vaccers” (or was it ”anti-vaxxers”?). But for a closer impression about my ways of reasoning I do indeed recommend a look at the above-recommended pieces in the Facebook group ”Political Psychology”.
Ett kort svar till Ernst, vars inlägg jag alltid uppskattar !
Situationen kring Kuba hade verkligen kunnat bli ett världskrig eftersom det handlade om att Sovjetuionen beslutat sig för att skeppa dit en massa sovjetiska missiler, också kärnvapenbestyckade. Också i övrigt handlade det ju då inte alls bara om Kuba utan om utvecklingen i hela Latinamerika.Och samtidigt i Europa också för den delen. Och kärnvapenländerna sprängde vid den tidpunkten gladeligen sina atombomber i atmosfären och på marken runt om i världen just då.Också nästan direkt bakom vår gräns till Ryssland i norr.
Gällande Ukraina är det rena idiotin att sitta och diskutera om huruvida Ryssland känt sig provocerad eller inte av ”väst”. Vi har alltsedan Sovjets kollaps kunnat följa med hur Ryssland steg för steg försökt bygga upp sitt gamla imperium på nytt i alla länder som i tiden hörde till Sovjetunionen och dessutom i såna länder som Ryssland upplevt att borde ha hört till dem historiskt. Det handlar idag kort och gott om huruvida de forna sovjetstaterna skall tillåtas utvecklas i en västorienterade riktning eller inte.Ryssland vill ju verkligen inte göra dem till socialistiska stater mera utan till lydstater under sig.
Det som jag dock inte förstår mig på är varför denna NWO-doktrin kopplar samman kriget mot Ukraina (där man mer eller mindre ställer sig på Rysslands sida) med vaccinmotståndet och ifrågasättandet av att Covid19 skulle alls ha varit en pandemi (också om Coviden uppstod av att kineserna i misstag läckte ut viruset ur ett laboratorium så handlar det ju om ett virus och om en pandemi på riktigt). Sist och slutligen så handlar det ju om rysk propaganda: Att USA är skyldigt till det mesta av det onda i världen just nu, och inte bara USA utan ”makteliten” i väst.
På den tiden då Russian Televison RT ännu sändes gratis i de finska TV-kanalerna så kunde vi ju med egna ögon och öron dygnet runt sitta och följa med denna propaganda.
Well, to begin with an answer to the last paragraph, the phenomenon that those who think that Russia was provoked by the West into invading Ukraine will often also think that the COVID pandemic was/is not ”real” is (possibly) based on the (by me described) mechanism that they have lost their belief in the claims of the official channels (i. e. governments, media) and now think that EVERYTHING which comes from these channels is wrong, so that ”logically” the claims of some channels which claim something different/opposite ”must” be correct. And to treat these people as ”crackpots” for believing such will just get them to close their ranks and insist on their ”truths” the harder. I suspect that the BEGINNING of this is that people have, while growing up, been encouraged to see the world as something like a battleground between GOOD and EVIL (where one is also expected to choose sides), and I should not be surprised if such an attitude were strongly promoted by a religious education.
As concerns Cuba, one should not mix up the Bay-of Pigs invasion, which was early in 1961, with the Cuban Missile crisis, which was late in 1962. It is true that Krushchev had promised already in 1960 that he would provide Cuba with Soviet weapons, but Soviet nuclear missiles became a topic only in 1962. And it is not clear why exactly Krushchev was installing those missiles. But anyway it was him who offered a wise diplomatic solution to the crisis by offering the deal that the Soviet Union would withdraw those missiles from Cuba IF the USA would (a) guarantee the independence and safety of Cuba and (b) withdraw the US nuclear missiles from Turkey (to which he added that he would accept if the USA would delay the withdrawal of their missiles for a while to keep their face). The deal was accepted by both sides and (largely) kept (which does not mean that the USA would – then, or meanwhile -have stopped the heavy sanctions which it is still imposing on Cuba … – as a demonstration that the USA will always punish disobedience?).
As to the impression that Russia wants to restore the Soviet empire, I should like to point out that before the Ukraine crisis the Russian steps in that direction have been rather moderate. If one thinks of the South Ossetia/Georgia crisis, it was already before the crisis known that Russia considered itself (more or less formally?) as a protector of South Ossetia and intervened when Georgia invaded the South Ossetian territory – with the result that the Georgian military was pushed out again, which, though, did NOT mean that Russia would have invaded further parts of Georgia. But the development since is, I think, a geopolitical matter: Since Dietrich Genscher, then Foreign minister of Germany, had assured Gorbachev that in the case of a re-unification of Germany the NATO would not expand ”an inch” beyond the eastern border of the new Germany, the NATO has spread over most of the non-Russian countries of Eastern Europe – which says something about the reliability of Western assurances. And also the US American political landscape does not give the impression that one could even expect ANY reliable political line – after every 4 years anything which was promised before may well have become invalid (which one could say about ALL Western democracies). And in such a situation ANY Russian leader has VERY REAL reasons to remember the recent history: Hitler’s armies had to fight their way over something like 1400 km to reach the then Stalingrad, but if Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, the armies of NATO would need only something like 500 km (and that over not-easy-to-defend steppe) to get to that city. Putin sees that presumably. Henry Kissinger saw this seemingly as well (anyway he advised Ukraine ”to follow the example of Finland”). But Biden thinks it a good idea to sit safely in the USA (with an ocean on each side and a solid nuclear umbrella), limit the role of the USA to delivering weapons systems (also for trying them out), but encouraging the Ukrainians to fight bravely (and die in the process), and the Europeans to also deliver weapons (and to take care of the Ukrainian refugees) and also to believe if the US government claims not to have anything to do with the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline (which was a HUGE bonus for the US fossil fuel business). And just today I found in my inbox a claim – from a Republican source – that 28 per cent of the Ukrainian arable land is meanwhile owned by foreign (mainly US American) money … . Altogether, I certainly do NOT like that the Russian military has seemingly not learned a thing since Stalin’s times (which , among other things, results in war crimes and huge losses of lives), but I DO see that the geopolitical situation (plus the complete unreliability of Western politics) demands Russian resistance. And the way how the USA are threatening China if it should dare to help Russia may meanwhile well have convinced the Chinese that if the USA should manage to beat Russia into submission, China will be next to be treated that way … . Altogether, NO, I do NOT believe in the US American leadership of the ”Free World”. But I do think that the COVID pandemic is real. And certainly the Russian propaganda is a bunch of lies (as propaganda tends to be).
Usa är en avgörande ledande faktor i väst. Oberoende av vad du tycker. Väst innehåller många olika viljor. Tex Turkiets o Ungerns annorlunda viljor.
Jag tycker dock inte om dina förklaringar som antyder att Ryssland vore berättigat till den massförstörelse av Ukraina som de gör nu. I framtiden får Ryssland finna sig i att väst kommer närmare dem. Och alla tycks inte gå med på vsb-pakter såsom Finland 1948. Bara Belarus o Kazakstan har tvingats till sånt nu
AGAIN the trouble that my reply suddenly disappeared – but as it was not very long, I try again: My impression is that we shall presumably not manage to arrive at an overall agreement, but at least we can still have a look at the facts. Thus, that the USA are ”en avgörande ledande faktor i väst” can be taken as a simple fact. And that it was a very understandable reaction to the outbreak of a nearby war to apply for NATO membership we can also agree on. But we can still try to get an idea what to expect from the above ”faktor” and how to perhaps try to avoid possible unwelcome consequences of a NATO membership. For this, I recommend a read of
riseuptimes.org/2023/01/14/this-business-of-burning-human-beings-by-david-swanson/ , and within that text especially the piece by Medea Benjamin & Niclas J. S. Davies (who are reporting how both Britain and the USA were very actively sabotaging a political solution which would, about, have corresponded to the earlier recommendations of Henry Kissinger – which would also fit well with my earlier recommended piece ”The Fogs of (Information) War” in the Facebook group). – The names of the here-mentioned authors can all be googled; they are peace activists, but seem at least to have been reading up about the matter).
And as to the question whether Russia ”vore berättigat” to its actions I should recommend a look at my piece ”About Rights” of 13 Februar 2022 in the Facebook group. There is (among others) the sentence that ”survival will usually be valued as more important than some rules, even generally accepted ones …”. So that the piece recommends MEDIATION instead of insistence on rules once, e.g., matters of survival are at stake. And considering the relentless eastward advance of NATO and the chronic unreliability of agreements with Western democracies I should not be surprised if Putin saw (still sees) the conflict as a matter of survival for Russia (myself I am reminded of the Third Punic War which ended with the complete destruction of Carthago and the death or sale into slavery of all its inhabitants). Thus, also I should have thought it MUCH better to follow up the attempts at MEDIATION instead of provoking the conflict which costs many European lives and is a BIG also economic nuisance especially for Europe (while in fact being VERY profitable for parts of the US establishment). Well, one should think of it when being in NATO and, e. g. refuse to have US bases on Finnish soil (to prevent that they arrange some ”incidents” at e.g. the Finnish-Russian border, or ”actions” against the many Russians living in Finland, whom Russia might feel obliged to protect … – to the NATO ”partners” one should of course give other reasons why one does not want US bases, e.g. that one wants to avoid even any suspicions that there might be nuclear weapons on Finnish soil, because that might be taken by Russia as a reason to use its hypersonic missiles – which can reach any point in Finland in 5 min or less – in order to prevent the use of such weapons …).
Tycker du att Nato är bättre för Finland än Vsb avtalet?
This is a straight question, and a reply demands some thought, and of course there is no Vsb avtal any more … . But after thinking about the geopolitical situation plus some details which one could call ”small print”, I do NOT think that NATO is better – which needs some explanation: NATO is supposed to follow (and HAS the tendency to follow) the lead of the USA; the USA are safely protected by a number of oceans plus a very solid nuclear umbrella and are, from this convenient position, free to impose on the rest of the world all types of things which at least the USA think are ”in the American interest” (which is also done). And in addition there was that ”small print” : it was written in the very Hufvudstadsbladet (and has not been contested since) that there is in the USA a law which allows the USA to refuse military cooperation with any country which is supporting the International Criminal Court (whom Finland does support) – so that we can know already NOW by what reasoning the USA will refuse to risk a really big war with Russia if it is just for the purpose of saving the freedom of less than 6 million Finns (New York City alone has more than 8 million inhabitants …). In contrast to this, Russia has been, and is, a NEIGHBOR, which is acknowledged by tradition and has at least in the past been the basis for some cooperation. This ”good old” situation is at present seriously disturbed (Finland has joined the ranks of Russia’s enemies, which Russia has meanwhile acknowledged by announcing that also Finland can expect ”retaliation” if the situation should occur …), BUT, once that lengthy process of Finland’s acceptance into NATO should finally be completed, Finland would be free to introduce a special Scandinavian version of NATO membership (same as Turkey is practicing its own version) by, e. g., offering Russia an agreement that Finland will, as long as Russia does not attack, guarantee that there will not be any attack on Russia over Finnish soil (which should be FULLY compatible with the NATO contract – NATO is a ”defense alliance”, ISN’T IT …). This could be written down and signed, also be amplified by a Finnish refusal to accept American bases on Finnish soil (already to prevent that the there stationed US ”allies” could arrange some ”incidents” …). And with time we might, after Putin is retired or buried, be able to have again a reasonably good relation with our NEIGHBOR.
Jag håller med dig Ernst i det du säger om riskerna och farorna för Finland av att gå med i Nato utan egentliga garantier för att kärnvapen inte placeras här eller annat sådant som på ett obehagligt vis skulle förändra vårt liv radikalt från det tidigare. Jag tänker då på det rent konkreta i vår vardag och hur det ändras inom ramen för Nato. Det som vi ännu idag upplevt som en ”hemtrevlig finlandssvenska militärbas”, d.v.s. Dragsvik och Syndalen blir i framtiden en till tänderna beväpnad internationell militärbas där du inte mer kommer att kunna gå och ”knacka på dörren” och fråga om rekryt den eller den vore anträffbar på garnisonen.
Allt ditt prat om hur Nato hela tiden nu närmat sig Ryssland är också rena skräppratet. Ryssland närmar sig väst med sin militärmakt (deras nya informella ”Warschavapakt”, eller kanske man borde tala om Minskpakten) lika aggressivt herla tiden och försäker med alla tänkbara medel ta tillbaka de forna sovjetstaterna – nu senast denna vecka Georgien där Rysslands inflytande på regeringen och presidenten ökat betydligt sedan 100 000-tals ryssar ”flytt” till landet efter ukrainakrigets utbrott. Eller det här löjliga propagandapratet om att Ryssland alltid måste försvara sina ”medborgare” i andra länder. De ryssar som bosatt sig i Finland har för det mest kommit hit för att inte behöva bo kvar i Ryssland. De varken behöver eller vill ha Putins beskydd i Finland. Det enda putin kanske vill ha av dem är de egendomar de fört med sig till Finland.
Så för Finlands del eller åtminstone för min del gäller nu att än en gång välja sida, var man vill leva, hur man vill leva: Såsom i Ryssland eller såsom i de nordiska staterna och i Finland.
Jag har för länge sen valt sida och skäms fortfarande oerhört för min idiotiska lek med Sovjetmyndigheterna och SUKP under 1970-talet. Vi var inte kloka.
Could we agree that the confrontation between Nato and Russia follows the same (psycho-) logical rules as the confrontation between the believers in the mainstream and those who believe in the ”NWO”: if the one side demonstrates strength (look e. g. at the steady growth of the military budget in the USA), the other side closes ranks, and both sides produce propaganda (MASSES of it – the lies in it consisting of straight lies or of ”keeping quiet about at least one side of the truth”).
Otherwise, I FULLY agree with you that the present Finnish way of life is MUCH to be preferred to the present Russian one. But please realize that in the NATO debate there are more than just 2 ways of life involved. The way of life which the ”leading power of the West” thinks is ”not negotiable” produces phenomena which will feel ”exotic” to the average Finn. For example: an investigation in 1998 into the ideas of adult Americans about the roots of the human species resulted in 44 % believing straight into the creation report of the Bible (this belief also among 31 % of those who had gone through collage), a further 39 % believing that there had been some evolution but that it had been steered and supervised by God, and about 10 % accepting the scientific view of evolution; at a similar time there were 40 to 50 million American voters who believed that it would bring the Second Coming of Christ one step closer if Israel would incorporate all of Palestine. Aside of which there are of course those facts that about 60 % of the US households are financially unable to handle an unexpected demand for 400 $, that there are not so few people who live (and die) in the streets, the earlier mentioned piece of news that credibility of the US media was something like 26 % (the lowest in a sample of 46 nations), and more … . Thus, yes, we HAVE TO be careful about giving the USA not too much influence on our lives. About good aspects of the present Finnish state I was just recently (28 February) writing to the Facebook group under the title ”Government by Whom?”. But STILL I am of the opinion that Western democracy should learn (!) from, e. g., the classical Chinese system (e.g. concerning the selection mechanisms which bring people into important political, military and judicial positions) … .