söndag 14 juni 2009

Mother Russia

I've discussed my views on religions before and how most of the organized religions are more or less a creation of humans desire to take control of its existence and then the people around them. Now one of the bigger Swedish newspaper are discussing why secularism is more common in Europe than the rest of the world. Best line is when the author describes that one possibility is that since the 1700-century with the 30 Years' War (sometimes described as the first world war when even Sweden participated) the nobility has tried to divide politics and religion and then the author makes the best comment ever:

But the Europeans have been succeful to find other reasons to kill each others

Very true indeed. Also the comments are discussing fanaticism in it's many forms and that even spill over on those non-religious groups as well. That point is proven with one of the commentators that trashes the other with point after point being proven wrong and still keeps denying he is wrong in his quest to protect the humanistic movement (whatever that is). There you have a fundamental person without a religion. Nice way of proving the others right.

More religious preaching. One lady (never discuss a womans age, but she look old) is saying that Sweden needs a conservative party of European standards that talks about morals. She's citing some statistics that most voters want to preserve the Swedish traditions and such and mention that even the left wants that. That's the biggest problem in her logic. First of conservatism is about preserving the old and slowly change it represented with the Moderate Party and the Christian Democrats (She wants these 2 parties to take a more European conservatism instead of the socialization we have). No problem so far? The problem is that the Social Democrats have ruled Sweden for almost 74 years with only 9 years non-Social Democratic rule and then of course 2006 until today. The conservatism was created as a way to stop the French revolution to spread and the radicalism it meant. So what's the problem? The Swedish conservatism is radical compared to the socialism the left is talking about. The values everyone in Sweden should see as traditions and whatnot is fairness and justice as that has been the norm the politicians have given us for 70 years. The left is looking back at the 60's and 70's before the 80's turned our heads around.

You see the problem? We have different views of conservatism. Conservatism in Europe is lead by the Christian Democrats while in Sweden that party has not nearly enough supporters to keep them in the Riksdag. Conservatism also stands for the church and it's morals as seen by the parties names, but in Sweden it has been the politicians that have set the moral standards (believe it or not) as the church have been firmly tied to the politicians (and still is). A follow up question is how long does it take for the party in power to become the conserving force in politics? The only reason for conservatism being on the right side of the political scale is that it has been associated with the preservation of monarchies and the systems that existed. The left was the alternatives that wanted to change the systems, but in Sweden (and the Nordic countries overall) they succeeded. They changed systems and are now trying to preserve it and therefor are the new conservative parties. So, even how contradictional it sounds, beig on the right side of the political scale is being radical and system changing. Mind shocking is in it?

Final point of today They showed an documentary about Peter the Great of Russia. It so fun when they begin to talk about the Great Northern War and the objectives of Russia at that time. You don't feel anything else than boyish pride when they talk about Sweden as the great northern military stronghold with the military genius king Charles XII. Even funnier today (or sadder depending on how you see it) when we discuss the future of the Swedish military that due to budget cuts seems to disappear from nothing. From the worlds fourth greatest military power in the 70's to todays barely standing bureaucratic tower of babel. Not talking about nr 1 military power in the beginning of the 1800-century. It really went downhill after the Russians did what they usually do: Retreating east, looking at their population and say "gather some peasant's as cannon fodder, the enemy don't have that many people to waste!". Really, how are gonna win against someone that have the largest country and population in the world (don't know about China but we didn't fight them) and sends wave after wave of soldiers at you? It doesn't matter when one of your soldier represents 4 Russian troopes when they muster 14 soldiers on one of yours.

We didn't reach Moscow, but at least neither the French or the Germans were able to conquer them (but they took Moscow). Damn Russia and their pact with Old Man Winter.

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar