A Serious Green New Deal

Also published on Democracy Chronicles

The idea of a Green New Deal (GND) is rapidly sweeping across the western world right now. GND is the concept that aims for a radical effort against the impact of climate change. But it might well end with further political rhetoric, using the climate issue as a hook.

Many have wanted to fill this GND goodie bag with their own political ideals, painting it green hoping that this will bring good luck ... to their own ideology and its popularity. Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, the US Democrats and most recently, the victorious Spanish Social Democrats (PSOE) are among those who have tried to add this concept to their campaigns.

GND was originally (2007) a purely "green-investment-and-job" concept inspired by Roosevelt's New Deal but has since been expanded to include social reforms and subsequently been approved by greens, social democrats and the European left.

The only question is whether or not GND is a new American feel-good story in which economic growth looks green instead of blue, sprinkled with some minor social conscience concessions for those worst off. Or does it actually imply the total conversion of society that is necessary?

According to the autumn message from IPCC, we face the challenge of ending 200 years of fossil fuel use within 30 years. We must halve the emissions by 2030 and reduce them to zero by the middle of the century. Presuming economic growth continues, our energy consumption will triple during that period. Limited fossil fuel emissions, green investments and jobs, clean technology, environmental know-how or the homely intention of Roosevelt will not stop the climate threat. But there also needs to be less consumption and depletion of the Earth's resources. And with such a solution, the number of GND politicians would probably shrink considerably, as the popularity factor would drastically drop!

The word growth, implicitly economic, is what the whole western world is based on. We are told that unless we have growth, we will go under. And since most, perhaps all, of Europe's politicians (for whom climate conscious Europeans are due to vote in the European elections on May 26) choose the road to destruction, it is important to voice the unvarnished truth. The radical change in society needed to decelerate climate change requires a radical policy. The politicians standing alongside the polling stations with seductive claims about welfare and job opportunities, as well as saving the planet, constitute a jokers’ market.

What is needed:

A New Social Structure - A New Economy - Massive Green Investment - A Renovation of Democracy.

In France, the Yellow Vest protests have left Macron politically isolated. Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood – that is the social knot that must FIRST be untangled before green taxes would be accepted. Inequality is about to erode the whole of Europe with immigration problems, poverty and distrust in its trail. Planting green politics in such poisoned soil is the hopeless proposal politicians offer us today.

A serious climate reversal cannot build on financial markets and banks that continue to make money out of nothing by lending and thereby gaining control over entire economies without conscience or democracy. A new economy must be able to withstand less consumption and smaller loans. Stop making things that break in the interest of profit. Stop bombarding people with advertising, creating dependence on lifestyle and status. The whole treadmill must slow down. The economy must adapt to people, not the other way around. A climate reversal requires composure, not rush.

We are faced with an existential crossroads. Not: "And we also need to think about the environment".

Today, everyone loves the climate activists, but it is only a matter of time before the support will subside. Already today, there are mutterings from the right about the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. As time goes on, protests will also come from liberal politicians, the media and the business community, and perhaps also from the conservative left, when the inevitable debate about a serious New Green Deal will gain momentum and the issue is becoming an architectural and cultural one for society and not a political makeover.

The election for the future is not a party issue. It is about choosing between fear and conservatism or courage and progress. Maybe even a choice between activism or politicians who do not want to change until they suffer from the panic Greta Thunberg wishes for.


“I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.”
A Davis

The Polarization lacks an ideological solution

Also published on Open Democracy and  Democracy Chronicles

The increasing political polarization, a problem of the entire western world, is based on misconceptions to which today's politicians find themselves without an ideological solution.


During the night of the midterm elections, I switched on CNN International for the first time in a year, but no longer found a newsroom but rather something that looked like a military headquarters. Us against the president - the president against us.

In Sweden, almost all parties, media and people in general, support the Democrats. Thus it took me almost a whole day to disentangle news reports and subjective analyses, romantic reviews of Barack Obama and, not least, Trump's self-assured victory rhetoric, before I dared to form my own opinion of ​​how the election actually turned out. The polarization is not just political, it permeates the whole of society, and, just like in war, it's soon hard to trust anyone.

The biggest winner in the election was the polarization or division of the United States; the dislike of “the others” and the desire to tell them how wrong they are. It’s an attitude that permeates both sides, but, as most people can figure out, is a deeply destructive development, not only occurring in the United States but in the whole western world.

Many point to Donald Trump when talking about polarization, but as it had already started in the 70's, according to Nolan McArthy Professor of Politics, one has to look deeper. Also, it isn’t caused by social media. And when trying to understand who was supporting the right-wing radicalization, it turns out that the idea that it was the poor who supported Trump isn’t correct. In the Presidential election, Trump had more support from the wealthy than Clinton did. In addition, it wasn’t people suffering from the high unemployment who voted for Trump; they tended to vote for the Democrats.

But isn’t immigration, at least, a crucial and steady indicator of all the successes of right-wing radicals around the western world? No, not even that is correct. Right-wing nationalism also occurs in countries with almost no immigration at all!

The quest for a simple explanation, for absolute numbers, obscures the view of an explanation that is to be found on a somewhat more analytically demanding level. You have to ask at least two consecutive questions if you want to understand it - which many journalists lack both the time and unpolarized attitude to do. One is that few people ask themselves why immigrants are disliked. Also, could there be a common negative experience of society that includes an economic and cultural, as well as an emotional and social, explanation for the right-wing radical support? Some researchers have actually asked these questions and received answers but these haven’t been widely reported. A new perspective of why people vote right-wing radical is:

The experience of being marginalized, not being seen, losing one’s status and ending up an outsider.

For example, it is not immigration itself which is the problem but the fear of finding oneself outside a particular social group, thus losing one’s identity, which creates the resistance to immigration. And it's not unemployment itself that generates the most dissatisfaction but the fear of being affected by it - rich or poor. Those who really suffer from unemployment tend to vote for left-leaning parties or democrats.

Instead, it’s both a cultural and a social concern to lose one’s dignity and status. New values, new cultures, rapid societal change and a general experience of becoming a loser in this turmoil erodes people’s trust in the entire establishment.

The longing for dignity, stability and equality is so great in the United States today that people who despise the establishment, in their desperation, still resort to one of its most dominant cornerstones and its leader, to capitalism and the capitalist Donald Trump. But the trend is the same in Europe; Sweden is today among the most unequal countries in Europe and the gap between rich and poor increases at the same rate as the number of right-wing voters. The “Yellow Jacket” movement and the recent dramatic protests all over France is another voice of the marginalized..

Decades of increasing political polarization should have given politicians plenty of time for reflection and solutions. But the political establishment in the western world is de facto those who created polarization and are as trustworthy as a runaway train!

The Left's focus on economic justice can contribute to less dissatisfaction, but not to a different experience of the societal machinery as a whole. Their open approach to immigration, cultural integration and disregard to tradition will increase polarization. And Liberalism - favouring an independent market economy, privatization and a world where human value is measured in consumer spending with no concern for the increasing gap between the poor and the wealthy - has no hope. Furthermore, with global players beyond democratic control, mistrust grows. And this climate of fear and anxiety turns people towards conservatism.

Another democratic and ideological new order is required and a wave of social/humanistic unrest is already noticeable, but we need the courage to ask the questions that actually reveal the social and cultural background to what the media reduce to "violence and protests".

Circus Trump – A Dream come True for the Establishment

Also published on Democracy Chronicles

Are you tired of the worldwide media plague of the past few years, Donald Trump? One might think that such attention serves critical examination and sensible values. However, the secondary effect is that the debate leads people back to the old and familiar, thus blocking a critique of the current political system.


A few days ago we had a children’s party at our house. While sitting around the kitchen table, the subject of ghost stories came up and one of the nine-year-olds exclaimed: "What if Trump popped up at the window!"

The other day I was sitting on the train reading one of my favorite North American magazines which has undercurrents of anarchy, anti-consumerism and is full of great writing. But before I actually started to browse through it I thought to myself: ”Wonder how many pages before I see him”. One, two, three, four ... there he was – complete with grotesque scowl. Yet another one, to add to the many thousands already published in the ordinary media. With a sigh I put the issue back in my rucksack.

And when I attempt to gauge the temperature of the political debate, visiting traditional as well as alternative and progressive news sites regardless of whether in my own country or the United States; there he is. Day after day, same old thing.

Even when I'm sitting in the audience among progressive activists, within less than a few minutes his name is whispered.

How long is this going to last? This is one of the worst political psychosis I've experienced; a political traffic jam that just won’t clear.

And everyone is contributing: politicians, film directors, activists, intellectuals and, not least, the news media. According to surveys, he is the president who, during his first year, has had by far the most attention. And, also according to surveys, he is the president most disliked by the media for 25 years. Moreover, there is an unusually large amount of focus directed on him as a person. He has transformed news media into something that more resembles celebrity gossip. They point their fingers, their jaws drop in shocked amazement, they speculate as well as persistently cite facts that will support their self-image as innocent victims of this monster. He shouts back, they respond and boo. This hate-love drama becomes apparent to those who stand outside the ring and see the two opponents, each wearing a clown’s red nose, chasing each other round and round in their media/political circus act.

Some people probably think that this is some kind of speech in defense of Trump. But in this report, I have no wish particularly to condone Trump and his policies - I will neither support nor despise them. Here he is neutral, if anyone still remembers what political objectivity is. Yes, I understand the outrage; his contempt for women, disdain of ethnic groups, climate denial, opportunism, rudeness, the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - but nevertheless: there are more important things in the world than his views on these issues.

For example, that the western world is experiencing social decline, or the increase in public apathy and indifference to today's democracy. You who still choose not to prioritize subjects such as the decay of civilizations in favor of the man with the blonde forelock, just consider that Trump would never have been elected if people hadn’t been so indifferent to the old society.

Are you also aware that in your Trump-mania, you are now standing side by side with the most destructive forces? Those who also do not want him as he creates imbalance in their conservative “ecosystem”, a growing western caste system, where ever fewer people are being given ever more. Those who neglect human dignity and democratic participation. When you look contemptuously at those who voted for the monster and vilify them with rhetorical conservative catchwords as ‘populists’, you are supporting not only political technocrats and corporate capitalists but also lobbyists and globalists. They stand right behind, thanking you for your attention or, more accurately, lack of attention.

Thriving in this political darkness are weeds such as, for example, David Letterman’s interview with Barack Obama after his departure; a self- righteous, democratic feel-good interview that came across as passé as Hollywood’s touched up presidential portraits. Or the well-meaning Morgan Freeman in his series "The story of us", where he admiringly interviews Bill Clinton about the excellence with which democracy is pursued in the "free world". I mean, exactly who is free here? You can’t move a metre without being beholden to someone else. You are an economic piece of Lego in a model that you never asked for or had any influence over.

Do you protest against Trump because you want to turn the clock back or because you want to create something new?

The point is that it is not the political figureheads who determine the system in the United States or anywhere else but an unwritten agreement between economic, political and media interests; a culture maintained by an establishment. The president or government are appointed by the system, they don’t change the system. They can create political and economic turbulence around the world, but they never change the status quo, they act within the framework that loses credibility day by day. Meanwhile, the progressive social innovators, system critics and social pioneers have been at the circus. They have been there for a few years now, watching the same performance over and over again: "Trump the Chump". Enclosed in a political tent without oxygen - yet another silly political pantomime at which we are expected to boo or applaud. A dream that has come true for The Establishment.

The contempt for the radicals

Also published on Democracy Chronicles

In the New York Times article “What’s Wrong With Radicalism” (December 11) columnist David Brooks generalize about radicals. And actually, if one thoroughly consider his exact conclusions even though it’s nicely put together,  it carries a patronizing tone. Having all radical political voices of today bundled into an unserious package should be met.  


If you have a radical view of societal change today, you belong to a mob of factually misguided, gullible, irresponsible, malicious loudmouths who create unrest.

That is the conclusion of New York Times columnist David Brooks’ analysis in his article "What's Wrong With Radicalism". An easy and ingratiating read for the diminishing host of readers who are still convinced that the cause of increasing populism, the mistrust of the establishment, and a new political landscape across the western world is only an unusual virus; namely this radical, malignant and infectious mob. But it will soon pass; the well-established politicians, economists and opinion leaders are the obvious shepherds and healers.

There is something religious about this. Or at least a strong sense of escapism. Thoughts veer towards the Titanic and the orchestra that played for the 1st class passengers until the end. Well-dressed, cultured and wealthy people, mostly men, who share an illusory culture that just has to remain.

To me - politically engaged in an activist movement consisting of 70000 members with concrete economic, social alternatives to the current order, in pursuit of genuine democracy and transparency - and others who left the sinking ship long ago; columnists such as Brooks seem like a dying race, with neither political argument nor vision. In the United States as well as in Europe, wise and innovative people and activists work to create a different and worthwhile social structure that can put an end to people's increasing distaste for those in power and politics.

The Panama papers, paradise leaks, persuasive and dishonest presidents, surveillance, a small autocratic clique of people in the financial industry who are allowed to own most of the world´s resources, media companies controlling millions of people’s digital lives, increasing numbers of people suffering from mental disorders, and globalization that has removed power so far away from people's everyday lives that no one cares anymore, are some aspects of our reality. Perhaps Brooks considers this fake news and behind the denial is, of course, the insight that this miserable state is not caused by "political fools"; it has been created by all the common democratic and undemocratic forces that have, for so long ruled the western world. Most of the passengers aboard this sinking ship are now trying to protest, knowing that we have crashed into an iceberg - and knowing who steered us into it. But in one of the sloping salons you will find people like Brooks. Clad in evening dress, puffing on a cigar, still in the process of ordering the best available cognac, in conversation with a small clique of opinion leaders who live in the past.

It may be that in this time of doom some of the passengers are screaming, are raging and shoving at each other and that every little pronouncement is not always true, but still, in comparison with Brooks, they stand on firm ground in the understanding that our society no longer primarily serves its citizens.

They say: There is no alternative

Also published on Dissident Voice and Swedish Fria tidningen

We are living in times of increased global economic injustice, suspicion against the establishment and a political terrain that is being redrawn to such an extent that few analysts really understand what is happening. Rarely have we seen such political mobility and possibility for change. But the ruling political consensus in Europe and the western world seems unyielding: “There is no alternative”.

The political and economic framework tells us that it is hard work, credits and consumption that the citizen must relate to. And when this machinery does not deliver, it is the citizen who takes responsibility. A time of considerable levels of unemployment and social exclusion is the most common medicine. The underlying message is that a continued development of democracy is not possible; which is why another society, characterized by participation, tolerance, security and quality of life cannot be realized either. Why do politicians’ ability to deliver stop at everyday politics, blocking strategies and just fishing for votes, and why is it no longer possible to discuss visions and a further development of our society? What is it that caused everything to be locked in a vice?

Sometime in the 80s, the free market had to be given even freer rein as it surely “knew what was best for everyone”. Politics was to be detached from the economy while banks were given wider freedom to act as creditors in order to be able to boost consumption and growth. Politicians and economists agreed: “There is no alternative”.

The increased lending led to debt crises in the 80s and 90s; the old, familiar story about money and credits lacking coverage until they are forced to be repaid, thus revealing the con. We know it in everyday vocabulary as a “real estate bubble”, “finance bubble” etc.

With globalization, capitalism grew out of its national costume. The boundless financial industry set the new world culture. Everything had to move faster, be easier, be temporary and follow the rapid twists and turns of the financial markets. “If there are no jobs in your area, uproot your family and move somewhere else.” The connection to political parties and unions dwindled; the old society was perceived as rigid, slow and unworkable.

In this new era of financing, people were urged to go beyond their own capacity to pay by consuming with their future income. Another way to circumvent the natural laws was the new consumerism. The simple principle that demand creates supply had expired. Instead, supply was first created, after which, with the help of marketing, demand as well as the necessary consumption culture was introduced, as illusory as tobacco advertising and bank credits. There are hundreds of bread brands in your supermarket, but not quite the one you want, right?

The new society characterized by individualization, efficiency, strategic thinking and less cohesion slowly emerged from the 90s and into the 21st century. The ideological breadth of politics in the 70s had shrunk to a red-green-blue alloy; a unanimous work- and consumption ideal; a culture originally created with a liberal intent now became a period of political narrow-mindedness.

Then came the 2008 financial crisis; the 150th since the late 19th century. The same repetitive process of interest rate cuts, increased lending and bursting bubbles. Millions of people were hit by unemployment, lost their homes and were forced to pay for the financial feast when countries had to skimp on health care in order to pay interest rates. Politicians and economists in the western world nevertheless agreed: “There is no alternative”.

The politicians’ democratic contracts with the citizens were no longer possible to maintain. The old principle of letting politics control the worst inventions of capitalism had, in a few decades, been transformed into allowing them instead to protect the financial world from too much democratic invention. Politicians’ solidarity with the finance industry became stronger than that with the citizens. A new caste of those in power emerged, a layer, a hybrid of politicians, economists and technocrats, an ever-deeper establishment.

Above this layer, a clique of powerful oligarchs, especially in the financial industry, has strengthened its position. They act beyond national borders and regardless of countries’ state budgets, unemployment, material and social misery; unquestioned and protected in the name of globalization.

Over the years and strangely enough to the astonishment of many, populism and the criticism of those in power has increased. The Occupy movement after 2010 should have been an alarm call. The prolonged breach of contract between the rulers and the masses has created a protectionist prairie fire all over the western world on the theme “We’ve had enough!”.

The threat of the European Central Bank and EU politicians in 2015 to close Greece’s banks and openly reject a democratic referendum was an assault; they might as well have rolled in with tanks, but that would have even more blatantly dented the illusion that the EU stands for peace. When democracy in Greece was put out of action, Europe’s deep establishment stood silently watching. They probably thought: “There is no alternative”.

Destructive extremism, antagonism and resignation over the way society evolves is not created by undemocratic forces or political loonies, it is created and maintained by all our common politicians, by EU technocrats, lobbyists and other influential people in our society. They argue that people’s dissatisfaction threatens “the democracy” but their democracy is merely a mantra, a washed-out club badge, pie-in-the-sky with populistic connotations to make people swallow a societal structure which passed its sell by date long ago. This cannot be diverted simply as a matter of correct or incorrect facts; it is a question of a proper social culture or not.

The options consist of a long-term shift in the view of democracy. Politicians must return to their employers, the voters, and guarantee the most basic economic conditions. Health care must be released from economic frenzy and all the ill-health and pessimism it creates. It is time to delouse society of wrong thinking, such as that there are insufficient financial resources while at the same time a small percentage of the population possesses enormous wealth. Also, politics must not be a choice between an economic autocracy or a state autocracy.

Politicians need your help; they need to hear the voice and clear message of the people. They must be directed to completely different politics and to a developed democracy that dares to remake and make right. They will not like it, they will bark, growl and threaten – but there is no alternative.

DIEM25's Democratization Project Enters the Political Arena

Also published on Truthout and Swedish ETC

To confront the Establishment head-on, and bring about the progressive Europe that is desperately needed, we call on activists everywhere to practice 'Constructive Disobedience.'"

The quote is a call to not accept an undemocratic EU. But the democracy movement DIEM25 (Democracy In Europe Movement) is far from a pure protest movement. DIEM25 asserts that the refusal to accept proposals from the EU must be supplemented with counter-proposals. Since it began in 2016, alliances with progressive movements and politicians around Europe have been created and there has been a continuing dialogue with its members. Questions have been put to others, as well as to their own members regarding how the EU and Europe can be democratized. How to put an end to banks, technocrats and a European political consensus that lack political visions and solutions to widespread European unemployment, but give provides financial aid to banks and the "deep establishment."

This spring, the "European New Deal" was introduced, in which the answers to the questions can be found in the form of principles and proposals for concrete political changes: principles such as the conversion of wealth into investments that favor a green and sustainable economy, but also offer anti-austerity and job-guarantee programs. Bank capital, inheritance taxes and green taxes will redirect resources to demos, the people.

DIEM25 has, in just one year, transformed its political manifesto into concrete policies. Thesolution to what it considers to be Europe's biggest problem -- unemployment -- must be tackled first by reining in banks and the entire financial sector so that stability can be created in a Europe that is about to be torn apart by economic and social forces. The overall aim is to restore optimism and people's trust.

Today, the biggest "political movement" consists of all the Europeans who choose not to vote at all. In the French election, 9 percent cast their ballots for nobody -- more than at any time after World War II. There are thus millions of potential voters in Europe who neither want to vote for nationalism/right-wing extremism nor neoliberal status quo politics -- an empty space of political ground that DIEM25 wants to fill.

But is DIEM25 just a new left-wing initiative? Taxes and regulations are, after all, old traditional left-wing politics.

There is a more holistic and less identity-oriented view of politics at its foundation. DIEM25 seeks alliances with groups, movements and politicians regardless of their party affiliation. It was the lack of ideological prestige that was the prerequisite for my personal commitment and desire to act politically.

There is no single party whose leadership is capable of extricating itself from micro-political squabbles and having the conversation that we must have on the basis of policy and the honest exchange of ideas that does not allow politicking. Nation-state politics is not fit for purpose.

A politically unique and telling example of how DIEM 25 differs -- with its more holistic view of which powers rule our world -- is the way the movement wants to draw attention to Silicon Valley as a destructive form of internationalism.

Google and other social media providers today gather information from all those who use their services. The problem is not that information is gathered; the problem is that every individual contributes to this social capital but lacks control over it. Until today, a biological person has had legal protection against abuse. But today, that person has expanded into also being a "cyborg": a digital person. But that human being lacks human rights. With smart technologies, people are becoming a bit smarter, but at the same time, companies and authorities are constantly allowed to be even smarter, because they can collect the material and always stay one step ahead. Unless you, as an individual, give your permission to businesses and authorities to exchange information about and dig into your private world, you'll be locked out of the social network. Absolutely unacceptable.

DIEM25 wants to create a counterweight to Silicon Valley through a free, open and decentralized technology. They want to create an internet where each citizen has control over his or her own location and private information. The internet can then be based on such a technologically open bank of citizen information, which means that all exchanges of information are based on the integrity and dignity of individuals. In other words, the influence moves back to people. Something that should be self-evident in a democracy.

As an active member of DIEM25 and of the Validating Council, I have, during the past year, both contributed to and been able to observe how new activist groups are starting up in country after country, and how competent people who are passionate about community and a different Europe have been appointed. This movement is growing in leaps and bounds right now, and the next natural step is to form itself into a political party -- Europe's first transnational party.

Greek journalists are speculating as to whether DIEM25 founder and former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis will now return to Greek politics. But as a transnational party, it is all of Europe's DIEM members who will decide in which countries DIEM25 will start its party activities.

In September, one week before the European Commission has its State of the Union speech, DIEM25 will hold the event, "The Real State of the Union" in Brussels, where the launch of DIEM25 as a party will develop, focusing on the 2019 European election.

"We will shake Europe -- gently, compassionately, but firmly."

A gigantic democratization project that could, of course, move in any direction. But for me, who for 25 years has not voted for a parliamentary party, it inspires hope in a necessary and unique time of political turbulence.

Liberation or Protectionism

Also published on Dissident Voice and Democracy Chronicles

The Western world has slowly been forced to realize that the old cornerstones of society are no longer a given. Liberal market economy, representative democracy and the shift of influence away from citizens up to a global and unreachable level makes for a drop in confidence.

The new political currents have led the rulers of the West to react with alarm. Finally, there has begun to be an understanding that the left-right-scale no longer applies. It has been replaced by a people-elite scale or a close-large scale. But instead the debate is dominated by the fear of populism. News reporters and political analysts now travel across Europe in droves, from election to election, country to country, in pursuit of a single election result that may indicate a break in the trend and a return to the old ways.

In fear of the new politically radical currents, whether they have traces of right, left, liberal, green or anarchy, what is perhaps the West’s greatest cause for pride, the tolerance of minorities, has been curtailed. Radical political ideas are under constant attack from a middle layer of politicians and the powers that be.
People’s longing for something new remains.

This was already noticeable 5-6 years ago with the North African uprising, the protest movements around the Mediterranean Sea and the Occupy Movement and the “1% of the population ruling over 99%”. The two western political “people’s outrages”, Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as president, are thus a natural consequence of years of a growing fatigue in the political status quo in favor of the more popular and cohesive.

In Spain, a referendum on independence is due in September. In Scotland, a new application for one has been submitted and in California, signatures are being collected to create a referendum on independence. In Europe, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the EU as a sphere of power. In all these examples, calls are made for independence, nationalism and/or regional rule. But the trends are rarely discussed in the same debate. Self-government in the form of a protectionist nation state seems to be something completely different from a struggle for independence, even though there is merely a difference of degree in the aspiration for self-rule and control.

It is a longing for liberation from the big and incomprehensible beyond human contact that is the motivating common denominator. In a smaller context, this can be noticed when social services such as schools, healthcare or different types of service facilities are concentrated into central municipalities in the name of efficiency and economics. Or when jobs disappear or are moved elsewhere and people are forced to break up from their loved ones and their neighborhood culture. A development that few politicians want to touch and which is beyond people’s influence.

The western growth machine creates communities with millions of “non-people”, unemployed youth or senior citizens who lack social significance. At the same time, a clique of financially well-off’s just grows stronger. Solutions seem to be lacking within the current political and social western framework.

The longing for a real society; for justice and community, seems impossible to stop in these times of break-ups, individualization and lack of human dignity.

The new perception of in what direction society is heading, has created new alliances of political movements as, for example, the European DIEM25 which works for a democratized and transparent EU. DIEM25 and the new French President Emmanuel Macron, as well as the radical American Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, reflect rather well the current state of affairs, both in Europe and the US; either new radical political currents beyond the classical political choices, or, as in the case of Macron, a longing to move away from the old at the same time as there is a wish to be anchored in the old. A political three-way-forecast à la 2017. But the biggest political change is not about who is elected but rather about the distrust of the eligible. Both Macron and Donald Trump are both politically skilled businessmen who have perceived a new radical need for change, unlike the classic politicians and their eternal promises of change which are no longer considered credible. The political change from left versus right to small scale versus large scale, regardless of which political icon that represents it, was completely unthinkable just 3-4 years ago.

The direction of regionalization and “the small-scale” causes fears; both among those who are afraid of an increasing intolerance to minorities as well as among liberal market forces and globalists. Those who want to restore participation, proximity and popularity see liberation.

Is it then possible to regionalize our societies without losing a tolerance for others? The answer should be obvious. Intolerance is not created by diversity; it is created by economic injustice and the lack of influence, involvement, belonging, respect plus the absence of a sense of community. People who are satisfied and feel visible do not look for someone to blame.

Was the decision to close down the Greek banks illegal?

Also published in ETC (Swedish newspaper)

The European central bank (ECB) refuses to publish the legal opinions that enabled ECB to shut down the Greek banks 2015.  The hush-hush surrounding the ECB and the Euro group and the blackmailing of the Greek people is obviously a process that would not pass an open examination. The citizens of Europe are given even more reasons for questioning the current democracy and their politicians.

In June 2015 ECB ended emergency lending to Greece's banks after the Greek government announced a coming poll regarding the conditions for another loan. The Greek people voted no to the conditions as it would have prolonged the depression. The Greek government did however submit to the conditions and to surrender to the power of ECB and the EU-politicians. The finance minister Yanis Varoufakis resigned. His reason was that the government had won the election by promising a decent agreement with ECB but that was never achieved. The Prime Minister Tsipras and the left party Syriza humored the banks and EU-politicians.

2015 the democracy movement DIEM25 was presented with Yanis Varoufakis as a co-founder and with the motto: “The EU will either be democratized or it will disintegrate”. DIEM25 is looking for a political diversity e.g. green, radical left or liberal but not for an EU-exit. Rather they wish to “repair EU”. Since the introduction DIEM25 has grown to 25 000 members in more than 56 countries.

As part of DIEM25’s vision of a more transparent Europe Varoufakis and the French radical left leader Benoit Hamon started a campaign in February 2016 in order to urge ECB to publish the legal opinions that the closure of Greece’s banks were based on.

By the time of the closure of the banks ECB conducted a private legal firm that formulated the legal opinion also called the “Greekfiles”. Greece was informed of the closure by the Eurogroup, a group of finance ministers from the Eurozone-members.  DIEM25’s opinion is that ECB is following a political agenda and is not acting as an independent central bank. Also, the Eurogroup is acting outside a juridical protocol and do not document there meetings. On the contrary, everything must be kept secret.

In July 2016 Mario Draghi, the ECB:s president was asked to open up the Greekfiles but refused. He referred to juridical  circumstances that has been questioned from a juridical point of view as well.

Not only do DIEM25 envision democracy and transparency. As the only Swedish official active member as part of the Validating council I can testify that this culture is also something that exists “inside” DIEM25 as far as I’ve experienced. There is a vivid dedication to create a new kind of democracy. In DIEM25 you’ll find an inspired Europeans independent from national borders as well as economical frameworks.

The Swedish opinion is moving towards a Swexit. Despite a new political landscape and a stream of   new political opinions nobody seem to be willing to move away from their political comfort zone and really act upon the lack of democracy signed by all our political parties in the middle of the epicenter of Europe. Political circumstances that citizen’s notice and make conclusions from.

DIEM25S’s request for publishing the Greekfiles is a concrete example of how not to obey before the “euroconcensus”. DIEM25 aims straight for the core-issues; the lack of transparency and democracy.

In times of re-actions this is much needed Action.

The social body and the threatening infection

It is a common view that 2017 is a politically unpredictable year and unpredictability is anything but what our Western society wants.

On the wish list are: Stable economic growth; political stability; a reliable government; a steady cycle of work and consumption and, not least, a reliable information system - a news media which reflects and analyzes what is happening as the "voice of society". All of these are interdependent in the “social body".

Many scoff at this kind of holistic approach. They believe that, on the contrary, society is made up of different stakeholders such as rival companies, the news media and a variety of political currents, preferring to stress that it is these differences that have created our eminent society and provided its diversity, dynamism and vitality.

Nevertheless, everything is dependent on a common system of norms. Without its common standards, the social body would quickly disintegrate. Principles and ideals such as representative democracy, liberalism, capitalism, competition, individualism, hierarchical arrangements, materialism, the human being seen as primarily an economic creature, and so on are ways of thinking that we never question but take for granted. Why would we not? Every conceivable alternative would be worse anyway, isn’t that right? For most people the machinery is, in short, just "our civilization". Everything west of the United States and east of the EU is generally seen as less civilized.

One might think that it would be the most learned, the most successful people who had the ability to look further and avoid this sectarian, societal self-image. But much of what happens is the opposite of that: The most successful and prominent people are those who have dug deepest into the current system. They are the ones who have been most richly awarded in our society by being the most diligent in following standards and adapting to them. They will not betray "their law". No, it is not intellectualism and in-depth knowledge that give people wider perspectives. On the contrary, it’s the ability to deprogram from the existing order which provides that liberating sense of clarity and insight. But the most profound insights are often left unacknowledged because they rarely serve the governing system. This applies in all social orders of the world and for all its dissidents.

Brexit, the US presidential election and the inauguration day have unveiled and exposed the social body for those who might have believed that society consisted solely of independent competing forces. Throughout the Western world, a wave of condemnation is currently emanating from the influential people in society towards all those who don't support the status quo, whether it's to do with Hillary Clinton, the European Union or trade agreements. Suddenly liberal, conservative and socialist seem to have merged into one and the same political force. Throughout the entire Western world, news media convey similar analyzes and the same conclusions. Banks in France unanimously refuse to lend money to the "wrong" presidential candidate and their campaign. The social body that never was now emerges into its complete form. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both attacked the prevailing system. One had more success than the other but in both cases their rhetoric was grounded in the only currency that ultimately counts; people. Real people who think, feel and make definite choices. And more and more people seem to be veering away from society’s accepted standards.

A rot is spreading rapidly in the West.

The social body is infected, it has a fever and is feeling desperately ill. Millions of people are increasingly rejecting their own civilization. The Western social body's defense system has no remedy against this epic threat; it trembles and cringes in pain, anger and fear. Its mouth - our old media - sometimes judges, sometimes threatens the citizens to quickly return to the “right thoughts”, because everything is a misunderstanding. Mostly it’s Fake news, the Russians are to blame or Nazis are hiding around the next street corner. During the Christmas holidays Barack Obama signed the ”National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA), thus also legalizing the “Global Engagement Center”, the propaganda center that will fight ”false information” as well as allow non-governmental organizations the right to gather information and contribute towards counteracting false information about the US and its allies; the new Riders who will carry forward the "good" eye of Sauron. The rot must be combated; Western ideals must prevail.

Society’s foundation and source of energy is the citizens themselves and when only a quarter of the US population support the old ideals and, furthermore, lose or when the European population reject the EU, the bedrock of Western culture has eroded significantly.

The Panama documents revealed economic crime and corruption endorsed by Prime ministers and thousands of economic stake holders. The societal body is already full of rot and on the ropes; everyone knows that. It is in a state of denial, like an old dictator who, before his fall, threatens with even more control, censorship and external menaces.

All the while, people look around and let the old decompose.

Are we doomed or do we hear the sound of new activists marching?

Partly published in Adbusters Magazine 129

In countries without any form of democracy the walls are visible and let the citizens know they are trapped. The walls in this world are towering everywhere, which makes them so difficult to discern. Most people still have jobs to go to. We have the "free" news media. We have our democratic elections and our supermarkets are well stocked. Everything seems to be normal and yet something is wrong. The new alloy of power: our banks, corporations, state authorities, media etc rules from an untouchable globalized layer of power. A new world culture settles like a light snowfall. Quiet and peaceful, it stealthily fills our everyday lives. A blanket named globalization and human disconnection is thrown on us. A death by suffocating seems to be the only path ahead for our souls.

This monumental and invisible culture shift is a fact but at the same time there seem to be a major change in people's consciousness going on. A new kind of activist has multiplied. But before discussing the new activist let's have a general look at the development of resistance.

It's a documented fact that the number of protests and demonstrations increases year after year, not only in North America and Europe but all over the globe. There seem to be a global turmoil that nobody dares or manage to explain. On the establishment's defense-radar the number of new echoes,  the populist blips has grown. They reveal a breach of contract between the people and the system. The "enemies" are now inside the gates. They're in the parliaments and maybe in the White house. But are fascists the kind of resistance that we've been waiting for?  No, but what’s interesting is people's mistrust and a growing feeling of "I have had enough" which necessarily don't have to be mixed with how it's manifested.

We live in a circular flow of labor and consumption that is invented and driven by capitalists, upheld and protected by politicians, normalized by the news media, energized by the masses that are supervised and controlled by state-authorities. Masses are running for consumption when they in fact are the ones being consumed. Can we expect a general mistrust being expressed in terms of political philosophy rather than a burned car? People are fucked up by a system that's getting more and more uniformed, distanced and less caring. They're looking for revenge and someone to accuse for their miserable struggle for money, respect and dignity in this western soap-opera.

But the growing resistance is also coming from what I call the new activist.

The new activist has stopped dreaming the impossible dreams. The old activist, the old revolutionary chooses between individualism OR collectivism while the new one can see the spirit of free will and individual expression grow together with solidarity in a society not based on fear and competition. The old revolutionary gladly accept politics that bunch infants together in day care centers clearing the way for adults and their careers in the treadmill. They ignore the social engineering of defenseless babies, young kids and their need for love, trust and their parents. The new activist see parents and children together and parents developing themselves in a society with another economic model.

The new activist can see all implications and is, unlike the old activist, not blinded by party issues, politically biased thinking, media campaigns, blinkered opinions or other binding associations.

He or she prefers to search for the truth rather than for opinions or judgments. A prerequisite for the creation of peace is that truth comes before identity.

The new activist is a truth seeker; someone who has left the introvert schisms of the old world behind. The new activist is not just the one leading the struggle for the poor against social injustice, even though that kind of activist also changes things. The revolution will be played out as much within the middle class as any other part of society. The conservatives, autocrats, hawks and patriarchs exist in all camps. The new activist is like a sniffer dog detecting power strategies and corruption and then exposes it without hesitation as he/she has no "club" to protect.

The new activist is an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary. He or she sees “the whole picture”. When that happens, one no longer holds prejudices and is less likely to envisage potential enemies and short-term goals. 

The good news is, those new activists are spreading like a prairie fire, creating confusion and fear among main stream media editors, old world politicians and political analyzers as the old world framework seems to crack everywhere.

The new activist, just like the masses of people that have had enough will never start a movement. They are the backlash brought about the new world culture. They are everywhere and maybe for the first time in history a leaderless evolution can take place instead of repetitive revolutions driven by control-freaks doing careers.

The New Devil or the One We Know

Also published on Democracy Chronicles

A wave of populism is sweeping across the Western world, and right now it’s most clearly exemplified in Donald Trump. The established politicians, culture writers, editors and so on are the ones who usually possess the most sensible and thoughtful insights, unlike populists who are blatant, emotional and dangerous; basing their opinions on simplifications and disaffection; not on the facts.

Western-style Government is fundamentally based on the premise that power should be based on the people. But maybe this is an outdated view. Today, society is much more complex. The consequences of referendums are incalculable for most voters, and therefore polls, where people with a lack of knowledge are given the same voting rights as those who have more insight into the issues, may not be appropriate. The entire Western establishment agrees that Brexit was a disaster.

And perhaps populist views and populist politicians should be kept out of the public debate as far as possible as they are irresponsible and even dangerous. The debates on integration issues, foreign policy and the views on leadership, schools, care, democracy, etc. would be more constructive if they were built on the established views and public reasoning and based on liberalism and the Western democratic culture rather than populist stupidity.

Anger, denial and a deep lack of self-confidence.

Populism occurs in response to elitism. To the traditional politician the populist is regarded as simplistic and irresponsible just as the powerful are seen as simplistic and irresponsible to the individual who seeks his own role as a grass roots citizen, the genuine article. Globalization has reinforced the vertical and hierarchical social order. Furthermore, power today is situated in a single cloud in which parliamentary democracy, capitalism, banks, intelligence services and media service providers can no longer be distinguished.

The anti-populist and simplistic political promises of “change” that characterize most Western elections lack value because they are rarely met. In our Western societies, no fundamental changes are created. On the contrary, it seems that Western culture has solidified around work and consumption as its only vision, with more and more stressed, tired and sick citizens. The trend is less analysis, less reflection and increased, convulsive social pace and more individualism.

One might ask which option carries the most superficial messages? Is it the simplistic discontent-confirming populist or the traditional, familiar and reasonable political hawk promising change but delivering the status quo. Is it the new devil or the one we know?

Many people fear a new wave of fascism. The only question is which one; the nationalist and humanly intolerant one? Or the incumbent hegemony: the power-hungry, dogmatic and increasingly fearful and controlling one? Is it Trump’s catastrophic view of women we should pay attention to or is it Clinton’s classic, ingrained patriarchal order we ought to examine? How is it possible that 40% of all voters ignore the fact that Trump doesn’t stick to the truth? Perhaps because the truths and the good argumentation that Clinton represents have never delivered in practice; within the social reality of the citizens.

Maybe we should ask why politicians, courts, banks and the media continue to lose people’s trust. Perhaps that would be something to pay attention to instead of the next political sex-scandal which makes our present state of democracy look like a burlesque show.

The most interesting thing is that there is a profound change in people’s view of the social order. Reduced confidence and increasing indifference to those in power have created new trends and new political thought structures not only among popular protest movements throughout the Western world but also among the ordinary citizens.

The carousel does not end on November 8; it has only just started to spin.