World history in a looking glass

by morton_h, the blogger

There should have been a catch, an elegant intro. I should have argued that there is a connection between the World and Me. But I decided to skip the cinematic introduction and go directly to the question: How did it all happen to me?

Why this angle? Because I was asked about my involvement, where am I in the turbulence? My first answer was: I am not an interesting issue, it is the bigger matter, it is the out-there that counts. But in recognizing that the World and the individual is one and the same, my next answer will be the following:

[scrool ned for at læse på dansk]

Biographical notes on heroes and chivalry
The entire recognition build-up for my part started as a child allowing myself to ask questions. Didn't we all do that until we learned not to do it any longer? The adults were the authorities, so it had to be true what they said. But I knew that not everyone knew everything since they only knew what they were good at, or they knew because they came from a certain place and had experienced certain things that they remembered and could tell you about. Good stories were always interesting, but there had to be some truth to them. To hear the old tell of the times long gone, was fascinating. I had uncles who
had almost served in the in army in 1864 (2nd Schleswig War) ... almost. They had certainly experienced World War 1 at a distance and the reunion with South Jutland 1920 at close range.

As a boy it was always the heroes that moved me. The brave, the determined, the resourceful, the imaginative. But also people who did just what they did for a righteous cause. I still today seem to fancy Coopers Hawkeye, Scott's Ivanhoe and Etlars Svend Poulsen Gönge (Danish freedom fighter who fought the Swedes in the years after the 30 Years War) as being true heroes that you can identify with. There is a reason why a boy and a young man must have his heroes. For the 'hero with a thousand faces' in Joseph Campbell's sense, the protagonist, the main character is none other than yourself about to unfold and become yourself. You may not be directly heroic like the heros of novels or films, but who is a true hero before the situation requires it? And would such a hero describe him- og herself as such afterwards? On a daily basis you might be just a chicken. For Campbell though, it is not the size and spectacularity of your achievements that counts, it's the mythical path towards yourself. The hero is simply a tale told about Selfhood.

And yet, completely chicken I may not have been always. I recall having smashed several pairs of spectacles in the school yard because some thug with muscles had challenged me. I was thin and had small upper arms, but firstly I must have been in seriously good shape by running, digging holes, climbing trees, played football and wrestling for fun ... boys, you know. Secondly, I had mobilizable temper and stubbornness on my part. And agility, I could do knots with my limbs. I hated being harrassed, and although some took to calling me 'professor' or 'spectacle monkey', well bring it on I said!

I did occationally challenge teachers verbally. Once I had found an error in my English teacher preparation. She was the school's toughest teacher, and all had great respect, some were even afraid of her. But the day after she came and shared a box of apples with the class because I was right, and right should be right. Honor and pride had not yet been washed out of public morality. Today I often have the feeling that codes of honor are only alive in some callous way of gangsters and immigrant youths.

I like to think that the concept of chivalry could use a revival. It should not be understood as some fanatical, reckless crusade havoc, where you are being incited in the bunch for a doubtful case, that was never in one's interest. I am talking about chivalry as honesty, integrity, willingness to step forward as a protector of the weak, keeping your word and remembering your ethics. A knight respects friends as well as foes and does not compromise his moralities with low life motives like greed, envy and despotism. Maybe revenge as the restoration of justice and bringing balance. Judea-Christianity took the patent on this and claimed that we were not allowed to take revenge and feel angry as we the pacifists should turn the other cheek when we are subjected to injustice. Chivalry may certainly be self-sacrifice, but not the sacrifice of ethics and ability to fight for the truth. Sacrifice is a choice you make, loss is a choice made for you. I would also argue that the character assassination of the concept of truth as one of the great words which we according to the opinion-makers are no longer allowed to use and condemned as a politically incorrect term, is a part of contemporary cultural decline.

The same with pride. If you are proud today, says Culture-Judea-Christianity, you are a sinner. As a musician I sense false notes in this melody. Meeting people around the world who are proud of their culture and who they are, is the very reason that they are worth meeting! What are we supposed to put in instead? What are we offered as a surrogate? Self-hatred, self-denial, lack of self-esteem, lack of appreciation of our history, our language, our country, our ancestors? The people from Jutland have a word from old times: stowt? The British would recognize that word too. Oh yes, the opinion-makers say, only poets from the 18 Hundreds could get away with using this word in the old sense because they were from another time. It is just some Jutlander-something. Precisely! They were from a time and a place where political correctness had not poisoned the original concepts and twisted them into newspeak and concept-relativism. The Frankfurt School and Cultural Bolsjevism had not infected the world yet. The multi-ethnic society was not yet in place as the weapon of mass destruction it has turned out to be.

The Jutlander-something with stowt and thrallsh are indeed words of our oldest ancestors. The ancient Nordic-Germanic culture that in the 700s created the Vikings had words for the free man as well as word of what made us slaves. It was due to a state the despotism of the kingdom of Norway that people chose to emigrate to Iceland. It was certainly not freedom and pride that Christianity offered these ancestors but subjugation and servitude in a new guise. And by the way, these people invented democracy. Let's just remind ourselves that it was Constantin the so-called Great, the man attributed to the introduction of Christianity as a state religion of the Roman Empire shortly before its collapse, who also defined the principles of the Empires successor, feudalism in Europe. And feudalism requires both the Church and the Crown. In Denmark the feudal operating system survived right up to the land reforms and formal repeal of land in 1788 of the landlords right to demand of the peasants, that they spend half of their time working for him for free. Thrallsh!

1650 years of feudalism
Was this the the end of feudalism? Judge for yourself, for a hundred years later arrived the next wave of feudalism in the form of the industrial age. Again Christianity was a discreet, willing and efficient supplier for the convenient slave ideology, as we can basically thank Calvin and Luther for the basic factory worker morality. Wear yourself up in this life and hope for deliverance in the next. Without this attitude shot into the spine the 20th century slave project would never have succeeded. Calvin's view of human nature was that of man without a soul. Man is a lost creature, and therefore he needs 'shepherds', which tells him what to do - he himself was obviously one of them. What is industrialism but one big de-humanisation of a majority of people condemning them to be pendant for machines? The fact both Luther and later Calvin were financed by the wealthy and scheming Venetians, both makes world history more complex and firmly connected. Interestingly, moreover, it was Venetian 'diplomacy', which organized the 30 Years War, which happened to wipe out half of Europe's population! Interesting also that it was the Venetians next headquarters, the British Empire, from where the two perfidious World Wars were organized in the last century - which oddly enough did virtually the same thing twice in a row! And coincidentally (), it was also in Protestant England that industrialism began in the 1800s by sending children down crawling the coal mines. For elaborating on that, see the brilliant British historian, Terry Boardman.

Meanwhile the rebuts of peasant slavery in Denmark brought temporary relief for the now lower ranks. Estates and the Smallholders Movement from the 1830s grew out of it and later the Grundtvigian Movement (Danish priest and poet, reformer of the school system for the benefit the rural youth) and the cooperative movement (where peasants held a share in eg. dairy, a distributor of crops or a butchery). One could argue that the politicians of those days had to introduce reforms if they would avoid pitchfork-revolutions. It was not due to goodness in their hearts, that they went along with it, and they made sure that the landowners as far as possible were compensated.

My whole family on both the maternal and paternal side (Jutland and Funen) were cotter and peasant families, the cotter being the bottom line of what you could get by with: be that a small piece of land, two cows, four pigs, a horse and a bunch of chicken. And you actually could get by until consumerism after WW2 broke through. The next stage of industrialism sat through: kartelism we may call it, meaning the Slave Society going global. Farming was industrialized, the peasants became the new factory workers, gone was the touch of free life in the countryside. I have seen the pride, the stowtness as these men of the soil held a pride in what they could grow and in their whole lifestyle. They worked from early morning till late evening and in weekends too (weekend, a term invented in the industrial era). They never had a vacation. But they were free in the sense that they themselves had chosen it, and the land, the buildings, the tools and the products that came out of it was theirs.

'Are you coming soon Ye smallholders'
There used to be an unbroken line of paternal and maternal lineage in the farming community. A farm could be inherited. It is sweep profits of Danish socialism that have undermined this continuity. It was socially unjust, they said about the eldest son-favoritism. So 'fair' taxes were introduced to make acquisition of a paternal-farm difficult, for some impossible. For whose benefit? For the State and large farmsowners benefit, of course. Neo-feudalism sneaked in by the back door, and the State could now referring to a 'just' law steal what families had built up over generations. Isn't it weird the way States always claim the motive of looking after its children and always ends up abusing them?

Industrial Farmers became the new men's men in the Danish mechanized and -chemified industrial agriculture, and migration from the villages destroyed the once typical Danish village culture. The landscape, its beauty and its inhabitants beauty that was besung and musically described by master composer Carl Nielsen in his many popular songs ar not really here any longer. The local co-operative store was closed. The school was closed. The cooperative dairy was gone. The church and the village hall was no longer a unifying institutions. The peasants were not allowed to sell from the farm without having to beg the new nanny-social state. Home butchering was condemned illegal. It was unsafe for the public health, since farm products were filled with bacteria that only could be handled by the industry and its 'scientific' methods. The sadness has now arrived in fringe Denmark, and some municipalities almost speculate in exporting their transfer income clients to the most fringe- and decay-like places.

My dear old father went in his young days from being a dairy worker to work for the newly emerged industry: a margerine factory. I never eat that shit today knowing what it takes to combine oil with water: a lot of chemicals! In the old days at least it used to be fish- and whale-oil, not good for the whales though, but actually not bad for human food. But what was more disturbing was the whole industrialisation of food production done on the same principals. Here started a gradient and destructive corruption of food as our forefathers knew it.

I myself live in the countryside today, but luckily I have discovered that there is also a countertrend, a stubborn will to preserve a piece of the embattled culture in one form or another. Even though the grocery and the school is gone and apple orchard stands and falls due. I could argue that I have re-established the connection to the culture, my parents came from. It will probably be a slight exaggeration to say that I have returned to the earth, for I am so far only a hobby-wannabe-farmer. But I do not consider it a coincidence that after 35 years of hectic city life and ambitions are starting to pull away from it, with permanent job in the city as the seat belt.

Many of these statements are revelations made amidst of my life. There was a build up, a gathering of experience. But when, how and why did I seriously discovered that something was wrong? Acknowledgements of that size rarely happens in one go but as a slow process.

I set out early to become an artist. The seeds were sown in my own family, and I can thank my late mother that I became a skilled amateur dancer winning prices in competitions and my old father and his even older and long-dead cousin that I began to learn to play an instrument: violin. Dance taught me the necessary motorical skills, sense of form and timing, and the violin and the piano taught me the rest. I would be a violin virtuoso. This did not happen, for I practiced my shoulder out of joint. But I learned a lot at the Carl Nielsen Academy of Music for three years. Later it was seven years of music studies at the University of Copenhagen finishing with yet another three years studying conductor at the Royal Danish Academy of Music. After a teaching music career in management and 10 years as a self-taught composer of quite a lot of music for choir and ensembles.

Why do I have to mention this? It is important because the artistic method taught me how to think and act outside the box. It is simply the essence of the creative field. As a musician, you learn to listen for 'false notes' and hear the silence between the lines.

It was as a young, sensitive music student that I also encountered meditation in the Eastern tradition. With it came an underworld of esoteric literature from both the West and East. A work that particularly struck me, was the J.G. Bennett Gurdjieff biography. It seemed to me then obviously true that most people lived their life as automatons. It seems to me increasingly obvious that there is more than just something to it, and that humans as a species and individuals seem to have a brain injury, a built-in, perhaps even implanted defect (acc. Gurdjieff), an organ, as he called kundabuffer. He invented always his own cryptisized names for as he said to 'barry the dog even deeper'. Maybe the word is not so cryptic as it seems, it's a kundalini buffer, a blockage of the natural life stream that could have had free flow. Instead, we are paralyzed and stagnant and live our lives as semi-animals. We are, whatever we choose, part of a cosmic-energetic food chain, where we have the choice - because we always a choice whether we choose to execute it or not - between supplying our energy to the Universe in the form of conscious suffering or unconsciously animalistic energy discharge. Live like a human or die like a dog.

It was really a strong statement scary in itself and a wee bit too challenging. I noticed it but put it aside for years. None the less everything we do as youth with youthful passion, seeds will be sown. When we are struck by the power of great ideas, we will be changed sooner or later. Some become disillusioned and turns with contempt toward their betrayed youth. I chose to preserve it for future times when I might better understand it. We can not assume cognition, it must be done through life experience.

It seems as though our culture has turned against old age experience force. It seems dangerous and in the way of the cultural future designers. Volatility, superficiality and non-historicallity seem to be prerequisites for this design. Back then, we felt that old age obduracy stood in the way of progress and innovation. This turned out to be right and wrong at the same time.

The Culture Designers
As self-absorbed youths in the 70s we did not know that these parents and grandparents, that we called the obdurate themselves were deeply deceived and betrayed by two world wars and an intervening depression. Then, they were bribed with welfare and a dope named consumerism. We, in turn, grew up as spoiled rotten, we lacked actual knowledge and historicity, and we were therefore easy victims for the designer ideology that was promoted along with the beat generation and the 68 uprising. I met it as a college student in 1980. It was post-communism modified and targeted to the needs and seduction of intellectuals called Cultural Marxism.

We were fed Adorno, Habermas, Benjamin, Marcuse and literally went through Gyldendals five-volume History of Music with politically correct social history as head angle. When I wrote the final musical history assignment and submitted it with presentations and discussion, I discovered that my teacher and examiner, one of the co-authors of GM, had trascribed a section using one of his PHD students thesis. Unfortunately, my teacher had not read his thesis properly and turned significant points upside down, which was now in print in a bestselling work. I ventured to draw attention to it, which in the name of fairness helped to trigger the highest mark, the second would have been embarrassing. In retrospect, it seems really as a kind of bribe (Schh .. do not say it too loud). But it also gave me a sudden lack of respect for Academia and its ways of handling knowledge. There was a worm that gnawed at the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. This was the so-called 'progressive educators' who though they had qualities as teachers - my supervisor was a both talented and well organized teacher and thus quite popular among students - had also been corrupted by their own ideological correctness and even fell into the ditch at the factualities. They could not even figure out how to properly transcribe! What could not have been messed up along the way?

Today I look back on many of the self proclaimed 'progressives' as the reactionaries who were so busy pointing fingers at their past and present, that they became what they had been pointing at.

Once realized, I just had to finish my academic career, but I took with me all I could use. I did however have total respect for the musicians profession, for it meant that you had to put your ass in height of smacking and expose yourself to the direct settlement of box 1. You cannot hide musical incompetence. You cannot cover yourself behind the intellectual rationalizations and constructions. You cannot distance yourself and run from the bill. It is instant karma. It was in some ways a return to stories from my childhood and youth where the protagonist had to look the enemy (in this case the audience) directly in the eyes - and make it your friend of course. Just like the dragon. Although you may be able to get away with empty bladders and show-off-charm once of twice, you would soon be toppled. I finished finished conductor training and was privileged by having the world's best choral conductor as a teacher for three years and I could consider myself taught in a second hand lineage from Sergiu Celibidache and Leonard Bernstein.

For a number of years I concentrated on becoming as skilled as possible. After a decade as a performing and teaching, I chose to play away and start teaching in multimedia and graphics. I've always had a bit rude urge to gamble away outside the comfort zone. But that I did of course already as a musician, because I was not from a 'real' musicians family, I had to fight me for everything from scratch. There were plenty of backup but no direct social-mental inheritance, no family or friend role models.

During that time I really had no idea of what was happening in the larger reality, but in the local reality as discribed above the various authorities had been crumbling. An employer, a school superintendent, turned out to be a dirty old pig and a corrupt reactionary opportunists in the guise of politically correct progressive. The same with an equally politically correct colleague who towered on young female students and hung out with psychopaths and rocker-wannabes. It was during the years I was aware that certain types of women took advantage of the political correctness called feminism in order to commit a power play. A former girlfriend thought she could get away with spinning a story of incest in relation to my son. She did not succeed very well, but it was remarkable the following years that exactly the same story repeated itself with people in my close circle of friends and people I heard about. There was simply a special trend among certain types of women these years to try out limits, and children were used as hostages against the men they couldn't handle and subdue. For whose benefit? At the expense of whom?

In Denmark, fortunately, they chose at the beginning of the millennium to adjust the legislation and especially its interpretation and practice and go against this perfidious trend. Women did not to the same extend get away with their staged character assassination and manipulations of the father of their children. The flip side of this coin is, that women rarely are held responsible for their psychological terror on men in cases of false accusations of rape and child abuse. But a man having been accused of that sort will NEVER be cleansed unless she has been convicted of a false accusation. He is infected with her filth for the rest of his days. This is the lukewarm Danish compromise on that issue.

If we want to know what path this trend is supposed to go, we should study the development of Swedish society these years. It is nothing less than disturbing! Here we find an imposed politically correct feminist tyranny with government approval. Children in schools are now indoctrinated with a bizarre kind of feminist sexism in form of a decreed of abolition of gender. Boys and girls may no longer be called male and female, they should be gender neutral and called 'hen' ('han' meaning 'he' and 'hun' meaning 'she'). Children are now sexless creatures named after chicken! Boys should be taught to think of themselves as potential rapists and women MPs get away with proclaiming that all problems in this world are caused by middle-aged men. In Sweden forced Removals of children is record high, a particularly mean and politically correct form of 'human trafficking'.

And then there's the Swedish immigration policy that has gone completely out of a destructive string, a topic for another blog. The saddest thing is that Swedes keep their head down for the sort. Simultaneously with unbridled mass immigration, emigration of Swedes out of the country is higher today than during the classical depression emigration in the 1800s! The Swedes are fleeing right now from the new soft totalitarianism. Disgusting, disturbing!

The Millennium trick
Flashback to 2001. What happened on the main stage the following years, happened synchronously to many people around the world. It goes for the events, the immediate reactions to the events and the hangover days-years after the events.

The millennium was already hyped to violently as the end of the world. People then saw that nothing really happened. It was just screaming from corporatist neurotics? Was the whole thing a 'drill', was it all just an act of sense dulling in order for 9/11 to beat even harder? There is no one who can convince me that they did not know how operating systems would react to a simple digital change of number! I know what they can do in computing environments and simulation is not exactly an unknown phenomenon. Someone used the Millennium Shift for an ideological purpose.

What hit us next, we seem to know nothing about. We had no scale and no references. It was so surreal that we forgot to see, hear and think. All perception and reasoning was switched off with our own power. They only had to press the trigger, and then we did it to ourselves!

Today I know that black magic exists and is being practiced. It is not a thing from a Harry Potter childrens novel or a Hollywood film repro of the same. It is here and now, smack in your face. And it works! WTC / 9-11 was in deed a black magic scenery. As a musician and musicologist, I knew very well Karlheinz Stockhausen, one of the 20th century's most exclusive avant-garde score composers, mr. Modernism Himself. He made the following comment: 'What we have seen here, is the Devil's work of art'. How dare he say such things? I remember that I was angry and condemned the statement as arrogant inappropriate, and it took me several years before I understood what he had said and that he had formulated it extremely accurate in its own peculiar way. He did not hail it, he identified it, he recognized it. For it was in deed an artificial work staged by a cabalistic body, a devilish Network, whose existence and functioning until then we had not been aware of. Although the Network had been very active throughout the 20th century - just to make a boundary - very, very few people have had ANY idea about its operation and its proportion. Everyone have seen the results of its activity, but very few have formulated and identified it. Now came the Network onto the global stage and showed off a 'work of art' with the objective of producing a significant shift, a Millennium Shift.

It has subsequently become clear to me that we are some years before actually witnessed a significant one of the Network's 'works of art'. I freely admit that I fell head over heels in propaganda trap, as the entire media war drove like well-oiled and well-served wrapper for the Bosnia war in 1992. I lost friends in the account because I defended NATO's intervention against the 'evil' Milosevic, who carried out ethnic cleansing. Did he do it? Well, he intervened in favor of the Bosnian Serbs, but the terrorist organization and in fact Aggression Pact (not Defense Pact) NATO, the drug lord Clinton, the war criminal Madeleine Albright and US totalitarian war machine won the propaganda war. At the same time the Bosnian Muslims got away with war crimes, while the Serbs were punished and character assassinated in European and American media just as war criminals. Like before-during-after WW2 we were drawn image of the good, the just and the heroic versus the evil, the unjust and cowardly. Was this the truth, even excluding the fact that everyone who goes to war, gets blood and dirt on his hands? Most people thought then, they were on safe ground.

But all safe ground after 9/11 suddenly became uncertain. As the saying goes in Hospitals, where I work, there occurred 'adverse events'. For example, the Network at some point felt so convinced of tis own infallibility that it misjudged the situation and exposed itself. They invested too big and 9/11 was an enormous investment that obviously worked exactly as intended in the first place. It was done with the secure hand of the black-magician, the Faustian artist.

But 9/11 also became the Network's hubris and thus a turning point. They became sloppy, they became arrogant, they left their mark, and they began to boast their atrocities. They left a stack of stuff from the crime scene, and when we and the World as stunned witnesses began to recover from the shock, the underground exploded with questions and self-study initiatives. Such a large piece of filth in one of the most densely populated public spaces of the World could not be swept under the carpet. Ground Zero was not a remote naval station in the Pacific. The time was not as before-during-after Pearl Harbor, for something new and dangerous for the Network had been established: the Internet. It was invented by themselves (Darpa) and now it turned against them.

Conscience - what cheap rubbish
This was the point of no return for me as for many others. You cannot as a descent human being with an intact conscience see and then not see. It's undoable - unless you are being exposed to extreme torture or similar perversities. And even then you can only be forced to take on other clothes.

Am I sitting here suggesting that 95% of all people have no conscience? No, I say that it is the combination of conscience and seeing. I am very sure that if these 95% had been offered an opportunity to see behind the facade and get closer to the untold event correlation in large and small spaces in the past and present called reality, they would have reacted, even violently. What has prevented this is that the 95% population from childhood and everyday for the rest of their lives have become accustomed to someone, the others, the adults, the learned, the authorities, the state, the science, the religion, the media ... have shown them UNREALITY. 95% of The Western World's population is now able to confuse fiction with non-fiction.

95% is a very high figure, and it dawned on me within the past decade that if the world is to survive as a place for living human beings in just 50 years, then this percentage must be reduced, quite soon. There are various theories for how low the threshold of ignorance and blindness must be / how high the knower and sighted figure should be, before the ship turns. It is also an ongoing discussion whether knowledge and vision in itself is enough. I say knowledge + conscience together. Con-science = knowing-together, knowledge with an empathetic dimension, brain and heart. In other words knowledge that incorporates and combines the knowledge of others. The opposite seems to be better-knowingness, the exclusion of other people's knowledge, fragmented knowledge, called science. And how sad is not science too often having allowed themselves to fragment, ideologise, politicize and corrupt their once noble cause. Science has become Religion 2.0.

I find it hard as some do to write off the 95% of humanity as stupid, dumb, mindless sheep (sheeple, or as the Jews say: goyim). It would suddenly make me a strange topsy-turvy kind of Calvinist. Calvin was also Jewish, who had taken a non-Jewish name, he was a 'Crypto-Jew'. The only reason - and strangely enough an opinion poll very recently showed it with grim clarity - that 95% of Israelis think that it's perfectly OK that their state to genoside Gazans is that they regard these creatures as monsters as inferior non-individuals, animals. We see here a systematic, cultural by-empathizing.

But it is not only here that I find this disgusting mental-cultural blunting. Every time I meet this truncation, at first I get sad, then I become angry. is the result of both sadness and anger. It is a house of cards that toppled the outside as well as inside. And it's not done with toppling yet.


Verdenshistorien i selvbiografisk optik

Her skulle have været et anslag, et catch. Jeg skulle have argumenteret for, at der er en forbindelse mellem Verden og Mig. Jeg har besluttet at springe det filmiske anslag over og gå direkte til spørgsmålet: Hvordan startede det hele for mig?

Og hvorfor denne problematik? Fordi jeg blev spurgt: hvad er din vinkel, hvor er du henne i turbulensen? Mit første svar var, at jeg er uinteressant, det er sagen, det derude, der tæller. Mit i erkendelsen af, at Verden og Jeg er ét, bliver mit andet svar følgende:

Biografiske noter om helte
Hele erkendelsesopbygningen for mit vedkommende startede ved, at jeg som barn tillod mig at spørge løs. Var det ikke det, vi alle sammen gjorde, indtil vi lærte ikke at gøre det længere. Det voksne var jo autoriteter, så det måtte jo være rigtigt, hvad de sagde. Men jeg vidste godt, at alle ikke vidste alt, de vidste kun noget om det, de var gode til, eller de vidste noget, fordi de kom fra et bestemt sted og havde oplevet noget, som de huskede og fortalte. Gode historier var altid interessante, men der skulle også være noget sandt over dem. At høre de gamle fortælle om dengang, var altid fascinerende. Jeg havde onkler, der næsten havde været med i 1864 ... næsten. De havde i hvert fald oplevet 1. Verdenskrig på afstand og Genforeningen på nært hold.

Som dreng var det altid heltene, der greb mig. De modige, de beslutsomme, de rådsnare, de fantasifulde. Men også de mennesker, der gjorde netop hvad de gjorde for den retfærdige sag. Jeg kan stadig i dag synes at Coopers Falkeøje, Scotts Ivanhoe og Etlars Svend er sande helte, som man kan identificere sig med. Der er en grund til, at en stor dreng / ung mand er nødt til at have sine helte, for 'helten med tusind ansigter' i Joseph Campbells betydning, protagonisten, hovedpersonen er ingen andre end dig selv i færd med at udfolde dig og blive til. Du er muligvis ikke heroisk ligesom dem, men hvem er det, før situationen kræver det? Og ville en udråbt helt beskrive sig selv som sådan bagefter? I det daglige er du måske bare en kylling. Men for Campbell er det ikke størrelsen og det spektakulære ved dine bedrifter, der tæller, det er den mytiske vej hen imod dig selv. Helten er simpelthen en fortælling om Selvet.

Og dog, helt kylling kan jeg ikke have været. Jeg mindes at have smadret flere par briller i skolegården, fordi en eller anden bølle med muskler havde udfordret mig. Jeg var selv tynd og havde små overarme, men for det første må jeg have været i god form, for jeg knoklede hele tiden løs og klatrede i træer, spillede fodbold og sloges for sjov ... drenge. Og for det andet havde jeg mobiliserbar hidsighed og stædighed på min side. Og smidighed, jeg kunne slå knuder på mig selv. Jeg fandt mig ikke i noget, og selvom nogle fandt på at kalde mig for 'fessor' eller 'brilleabe', så ku' de bare komme an.

Jeg kunne også finde på at udfordre lærerne verbalt. En gang havde jeg fundet en fejl i engelsklærerens fremstilling. Hun var skolens skrappeste lærer, og alle havde stor respekt, visse var bange for hende. Men dagen efter kom hun og delte en kasse æbler ud i klassen, fordi jeg jo havde ret, og ret skulle være ret. Ære og stolthed var ikke endnu blevet vasket ud af almen moral. I dag har jeg ofte på fornemmelsen, at æresbegreber kun er i live på en vis afstumpet facon hos rockere og indvandrere.

Jeg vil tillade mig at mene, at begrebet ridderlighed kunne trænge til en genoplivning. Det skal ikke forstås som en eller anden fanatisk, hovedløs korstogs-ravage, hvor man lader sig opildne til overgreb i flok for en tvivlsom sag, der aldrig har været i ens interesse. Jeg taler om ridderlighed som hæderlighed, integritet, villighed til at træde frem som beskytter af svage, ståen ved sit ord og sin moral. En ridder respekterer ven såvel som fjende og kompromitterer ikke sit moralsæt med lavpandede motiver som grådighed, misundelse, herskersyge. Muligvis hævn som genoprettelse af retfærdighed og udlignelse af skyld. Jøde-kristendom tog jo patent på den slags og hævdede, at vi ikke havde lov til at hævne og føle vrede, at vi pacifistisk skulle vende den anden kind til, når vi blev udsat for uretfærdighed. Og ridderlighed er selvopofrelse, javist, men ikke ofring af etik og evnen til at kæmpe for det sande. Jeg vil også hævde at karaktermordet på begrebet 'sandhed' som et for stort ord, som vi ifølge meningsdannerne ikke længere kan tillade sig at bruge - altså et politisk ukorrekt begreb - er en del af vor tids kulturelle falliterklæring.

Det samme med stolthed. Hvis du er stolt i dag, fortæller kultur-jøde-kristendommen dig, at du er en synder. Der er noget, der ringer falsk her. At møde mennesker overalt i verden, der er stolte af deres kultur og dem, de er, er selve grunden til, at de er værd at møde! Hvad har vi at sætte i stedet for? Hvad bliver vi tilbudt som surrogat? Selvhad, selvfornægtelse, mangel på selvrespekt, mangel på værdsættelse af vores historie, vores sprog, vores land, vore forfædre. Prøv at sige det på jysk: stowt? Nåja, vil meningsdannerne sige, det kunne Blicker, Aakjær og W. Jensen slippe af sted med at bruge, for de var fra en anden tid. Det er bare sådan noget jyde-noget. Netop! De var fra en tid og et sted, hvor politisk korrekthed ikke havde forgiftet visse oprindelige begreber og svinet dem til med nysprog og begrebs-relativisme. Frankfurterskolen og kulturboljsevikkerne havde ikke lagt klatten endnu. Det multietniske samfund var endnu ikke på plads som et masseødelæggelsesvåben.

Det der jyde-noget med stowt og træls er ganske rigtigt ord fra vore ældste forfædre. Den ældgamle nordisk-germanske kultur, der i 700-tallet skabte vikinger, havde ord for den frie mand såvel som ord for, hvad der gjorde os til ufrie trælle. Det var grundet i en tilstand af despoti og trældom, at folk udvandrede til Island fra Norge, for det var bestemt ikke frihed og stolthed, som kristendommen tilbød disse forfædre men underkastelse og trældom i ny forklædning. I øvrigt opfandt de demokratiet [link]. Lad os blot minde om, at det var Constantin den såkaldt Store, manden der tilskrives kristendommens indførelse som statsreligion i Romerriget kort før dets sammenbrud, der også definerede principperne for Rigets efterfølger, feudalismen i Europa. Og feudalisme kræver både kirke og krone. Blot i Danmark overlevede det feudale styresystem helt frem til landreformerne og hoveriets afskaffelse med Stavnsbåndets formelle ophævelse i 1788.

1650 års feudalisme
Var det så feudalismens endeligt? Døm selv, for hundrede år senere ankom den næste bølge af hoveri i form af industrisamfundet. Igen var kristendommen en diskret og villig og effektiv leverandør til slave-ideologien, for vi kan takke Calvin og Luther for fabriksarbejderens moral. Slid dig selv op i dette liv og håb på udfrielse i det næste. Uden denne attitude skudt ind i rygraden ville det 20. århundredes slaveprojekt aldrig være lykkedes. Calvins menneskesyn var, at mennesket er uden en sjæl. Det er et fortabt væsen, og derfor har det brug for 'hyrder', der fortæller det, hvad det skal gøre - han var selvfølgelig selv en af dem. Hvad er industrialismen andet en én stor dehumanisering af mennesker som vedhæng til maskiner? At først Luther og senere Calvin begge blev supporteret af de stenrige og intrigante venetianere, gør blot verdenshistorien mere speget. Interessant i øvrigt, at det var venetiansk 'diplomati', der arrangerede 30-årskrigen, som tilfældigvis udraderede halvdelen af Europas befolkning. Interessant også, at det var fra venetianernes næste hovedkvarter, England, og det Britiske Imperium, at to verdenskrige blev arrangeret i forrige århundrede, der underligt nok gjorde stort set det samme to gange i træk! Og besynderligt nok var det også i det protestantiske England, at industrialismen startede i 1800-tallet med at man sendte børn ned og kravle i kulminerne.

I mellemtiden bragte hoveriets ophævelse i Danmark en midlertidig fremgang med sig for de nu lavere stænder. Stænderne og Husmandsbevægelsen fra 1830'erne udsprang heraf, senere grundtvigianismen og andelsbevægelsen. Man kunne hævde, at de daværende politikere var nødt til at indføre reformer, hvis de ville undgå høtyvs-revolutioner. Det var ikke af deres gode hjerte, de gik med til det, og de sørgede for, at godsejerne så vidt muligt blev holdt skadesløse.

Hele min familie på både mødrene og fædrene side (Sønderjylland og Fyn) var husmands- og bondeslægter. Bonde og husmand er vel egentlig blot en gradbøjning af erhvervet / standen, for husmandens livsstil var bundlinien for, hvad man kunne klare sig med. Det kunne man til gengæld også frem til det punkt, hvor forbrugerismen efter 2. Verdenskrig slog igennem. Industrialismens næste fase satte sig igennem: Kartelisme kunne vi passende kalde det. Slavesamfundet gik globalt. Landbruget blev gennemindustrialiseret, bonden blev den nye fabriksarbejder, væk var det frie liv på landet. Jeg har langt hen ad vejen set den stolthed - der var ordet igen - som disse gårdmænd satte i, hvad de kunne dyrke og i deres livsstil. De knoklede fra tidlig morgen til sen aften og i weekenderne med (ordet weekend stammer fra industrialismens æra). De holdt aldrig ferie. Men de var frie i den forstand, at det var dem selv, der havde valgt det, og den jord, de bygninger, de redskaber og de produkter, der kom ud af det, var deres.

'Kommer I snart I husmænd'
Der var en ubrudt linie til fædrene og mødrene arv i bondesamfundet. En gård kunne gå i arv. Det er socialismens feje fortjeneste at have undermineret denne kontinuitet. Det var jo socialt uretfærdigt, sagde man, at der var en ældste søn-favorisering. Så 'retfærdige' skatter blev indført for at umuliggøre overtagelse af en fædrene-gård. Til hvis fordel? Til statens og storbrugenes fordel. Neofeudalismen sneg sig ind af bagdøren, og Staten kunne nu med loven i hånd stjæle, hvad familier havde opbygget i generationer.

Storlandmændene blev de nye herremænd i det danske gennem-mekaniserede og -kemificerede industrilandbrug, og udvandringen fra landsbyerne ødelagde den før så danske landsbykultur. Det landskab, dets skønhed og dets beboeres skønhed, der blev besunget og musikalsk beskrevet af Carl Nielsen i hans mange husmandssange, fandtes ikke rigtig længere. Den lokale brugsforening var nedlagt. Skolen var lukket. Andelsmejeriet var væk. Kirken og forsamlingshuset var ikke længere samlende institutioner. Bønderne havde ikke lov til at sælge fra gårdene uden at skulle tigge den nye nanny-social-stat. Det var jo usundt og farligt for folkesundheden, for landbrugsprodukter var fulde af bakterier, som kun industrien kunne håndtere med 'videnskabelige' metoder. Tristheden i udkants-Danmark har nu mange steder indfundet sig, og visse kommuner med byer af købstadsstørrelse spekulerer nærmest i at eksportere deres overførselsindkomster til de mest udkantsagtige og forfaldsagtige steder.

Læs Aakjærs nærmest revolutionære digt nederst i blogposten.

Jeg bor selv på landet i dag, og jeg har opdaget, at der også findes en modtrend, en stædig vilje til at bevare det stykke hårdt trængte kultur i en eller anden form. Det være selv om Brugsen og skolen er væk og æbleplantagen står og forfalder. Jeg kunne hævde, at jeg har genetableret forbindelsen til den kultur, mine forældre kom fra. Det vil nok være lidt af en tilsnigelse at sige, at jeg er vendt tilbage til jorden, for jeg er indtil videre blot en hobbyhusmand. Men jeg anser det ikke for tilfældigt, at jeg efter 35 år med hektisk storbyliv og -ambitioner er begyndt at trække mig væk fra det, dog med fast arbejde i storbyen som sikkerhedssele. Lidt kylling er man jo, nu bare landkylling.

Mange af disse udsagn er erkendelser gjort i midten af mit liv. Men hvornår opdagede jeg, at der var noget galt? Erkendelser i det omfang sker sjældent i ét hug men som en langsom proces. 10-øren falder i 1-ører.

Jeg satte tidligt ud for at blive kunstner. Frøene var sået i min egen familie, og jeg kan takke min nu afdøde mor for, at jeg blev en dreven amatørdanser og min gamle far og hans endnu ældre og for længst afdøde kusine for, at jeg begyndte at lære at spille et instrument: violin. Dansen lærte mig en sikker motorik, formsans og timing, og violinen lærte mig resten. Jeg skulle være violinvirtuos. Det blev jeg så ikke, for jeg øvede min skulder af led. Men jeg lærte vanvittig meget på Det Fynske Musikkonservatorium i tre år. Senere blev det til syv år med Musikvidenskab i København og tre og som dirigent på Det Kongelige Danske Musikkonservatorium. Herefter en undervisnings- musiklederkarriere og 10 år som autodidakt komponist af bunker af vokalmusik.

Hvorfor er jeg nødt til at nævne det? Fordi den kunstneriske metode lærte mig at tænke og handle ud af boksen. Det er simpelthen essensen af det kreative felt. Og som musiker lærer du at lytte til, om der bliver 'spillet falsk'.

Det var også som ung, følsom musikstuderende, at jeg jeg stødte på meditation i den østlige tradition. Med det fulgte en underverden af esoterisk litteratur fra både vest og øst. Et værk, der især ramte, var J.G. Bennets Gurdjieff-biografi. Det forekom mig dengang indlysende rigtigt, at mennesker levede som automatoner. Det forekommer mig stadig indlysende, at der er mere end blot noget om snakken, og at mennesker som art og individ synes af have en hjerneskade, en indbygget, måske endog implanteret defekt (iflg. Gurdjieff), et 'organ', som han kaldte for kundabuffer. Han opfandt altid sine egne kryptiserede navne for som han sagde, at 'grave hunden længere ned'. Måske er ordet ikke så kryptisk, for det er jo en kundalini-buffer, en blokering af den naturlige livsstrøm, der kunne have haft frit flow. I stedet er vi lammede og stagnerede og lever hele menneskeliv som semi-dyr. Vi er, hvad end vi vælger, en del af en kosmisk-energetisk fødekæde, hvor vi har valget - for det har vi altid - mellem at levere vores energi i form af bevidstgørelse af lidelse eller som ubevidst dyrisk energiudladning. Lev som et menneske eller dø som en hund.

Det var også et hårdt udsagn, skræmmende i sig selv og lidt for udfordrende. Jeg lagde det mere eller mindre til side i en årrække, men alt, hvad vi foretager os som unge med ungdommens passion, er frø, der sås. Når vi rammes af ideers indlysende kraft, vil vi blive forandret før eller siden. Nogle bliver desillusioneret og vender sig med foragt mod den forrådte ungdom. Jeg valgte at bevare det til senere tider, hvor jeg bedre kunne forstå det. Vi kan ikke overtage erkendelse, den skal gøres via livserfaring.

Det virker, som om vores kultur har vendt sig imod alderdommens erfaringskraft. Den synes farlig og i vejen for tidens kulturdesignere. Flygtighed, overfladiskhed og historieløshed synes at være forudsætninger for dette design. Dengang syntes vi, at alderdommens forstokkethed stod i vejen for fremskridt og fornyelse. Det viste sig senere at være rigtig og forkert på samme tid.

Som selvoptagede unge i 70'erne så vi ikke, at de forældre og bedsteforældre, som vi kaldte for forstokkede, selv var blevet dybt bedragede og forrådte via to verdenskrige og en mellemliggende depression. Herefter blev de bestukket med velfærd og et dope ved navn forbrugerisme. Vi til gengæld voksede op som snotforkælede, vi manglede egentlig viden og historicitet, og vi blev derfor nemme ofre for den designerideologi, der havde promoveret sig sammen med beat-generationen og 68-oprøret. Jeg mødte den som universitetsstuderende i 1980. Det var postkommunismen ombygget og målrettet til brug for og forførelse af intellektuelle kaldet kulturmarxisme.

Vi blev fodret med Adorno, Habermas, Benjamin, Marcuse og høvlet igennem Gyldendals 5-binds Musikhistorie med politisk korrekt socialhistorie som hovedvinkel. Da jeg skrev afsluttende musikhistorieopgave og fremlagde den med oplæg og diskussion, havde jeg opdaget, at min lærer og eksaminator, en af medforfatterne til GM, havde skrevet direkte af i et afsnit fra en af sine PHD-studerende. Desværre havde han ikke læst dennes afhandling ordentligt og fik vendt væsentlige pointer på hovedet, hvilket nu stod på tryk i et bestsellerværk. Jeg tillod mig at gøre opmærksom på det, hvilket retfærdigvis var med til at udløse højeste karakter, andet ville have været pinligt. Set i bakspejlet virker det egentlig som en slags bestikkelse (schh .. sig det ikke for højt). Men det betød også en pludselig opstået manglende respekt for Akademia og dets måder at omgås viden på. Der var en orm, der gnavede i æblet fra kunskabens træ. Dette var jo de såkaldte 'progressive lærere', der selvom de havde kvaliteter som formidlere - min vejleder var en både talentfuld og afholdt lærer - også var blevet korrumperede af deres egen ideologiske korrekthed og oven i købet faldt i vandet på faktuelle forhold. De kunne ikke engang finde ud af at skrive ordentligt af! Hvad kunne ikke være blevet forkludret undervejs?

I dag ser jeg tilbage på de i egen selvforståelse 'progressive' som de reaktionære, der var så optaget af at pege fingre af deres fortid og samtid, at de blev netop det, de pegede fingre af.

Jeg skulle bare gøre den akademiske gesjæft færdig, og jeg tog dét med mig, jeg kunne bruge. Jeg havde til gengæld total respekt for musikerfaget, for det betød, at du måtte stille sig op med røven i klaskehøjde og udsætte sig for direkte afregning ved kasse 1. Du kan ikke skjule musikalsk inkompetence. Du kan ikke dække dig bag intellektuelle bortforklaringer og konstruktioner. Du kan ikke distancere dig og løbe fra regningen. Det er instant karma. Det var på sin vis en tilbagevenden til bardommens heltehistorier, hvor protagonisten måtte se fjenden (her publikum) direkte i øjnene. Og gør den til din ven, selvfølgelig. Ligesom dragen og trolden. Selvom du måske kunne slippe afsted med tomt blær og show-off-charme i ny og næ, ville du hurtigt blive gennemskuet. Jeg gjorde en dirigentuddannelse færdig og var så priviligeret af have verdens bedste kordirigent som lærer i tre år.

En årrække koncentrerede jeg mig om at blive så dygtig som overhovedet muligt. Efter et årti som udøvende og underviser, valgte jeg at spille på udebane og begynde at undervise i multimedie og grafik. Jeg har altid haft en lidt uforskammet trang til at spille på udebane udenfor tryghedszonen. Men det gjorde jeg jo allerede som musiker, for jeg var ikke fra en 'rigtig' musikerfamilie, jeg måtte kæmpe mig til alt fra bunden. Der var masser af backup men ingen direkte social-mental arv, ingen familiære eller kammeratlige rollemodeller.

I den periode opfattede jeg ikke rigtigt, hvad der skete i den større virkelighed, men i den nære virkelighed faldt diverse autoriteter. En arbejdsgiver, en gymnasierektor, viste sig at være en gammel gris og korrumperet reaktionær opportunist under dække af politisk korrekt progressiv. Det samme med en ligeså politisk korrekt kollega, der ragede på unge kvindelige studerende på en daghøjskole og hang ud psykopater og rocker-wannabes. Det var også i de år, jeg blev klar over, at visse kvindetyper benyttede sig af den politiske korrekthed, feminismen, for at bedrive et ganske slet magtspil. En tidligere kæreste mente, hun kunne slippe afsted med at spinne en historie om incest i forhold til min søn. Det slap hun så meget dårligt om ved, men det var bemærkelsesværdigt de følgende år, at jeg så den samme historie gentage sig hos folk i min nære omgangskreds og folk, jeg hørte om. Der var simpelthen en særlig led trend hos kvinder om at prøve visse grænser i disse år, og børn blev brugt som gidsler mod de mænd, de havde ondt i sulet over. Til hvis fordel? På bekostning af hvem?

I Danmark valgte man i starten af årtusindet at justere lovgivningen og især dens fortolkning og praksis til at gå imod denne trend. Kvinder slap ikke i så høj grad afsted med deres iscenesatte karaktermord og manipulationer. Men desværre bliver der meget sjældent fulgt op på falske anklager for voldtægt og børnemishandling. En mand, der først bliver beskyldt for den slags bliver ALDRIG renset. Han bliver ikke dømt, for der var ikke noget at komme efter, men hun bliver ikke stillet til regnskab for en langt værre udåd. Det er det danske lunkne kompromis.

Hvis vi vil vide noget om, hvad vej, det måske var meningen, at denne trend skulle gå, bør vi studere udviklingen i det svenske samfund for tiden. Det er intet mindre end foruroligende. Her er der indført politisk korrekt feminist-tyranni med statens godkendelse. Børn i skolerne skal nu indoktrineres med en bizar form for feministisk sexisme, hvor der er dekreteret afskaffelse af køn. Drenge og piger må ikke længere hedde han og hun, de skal være kønsneutrale og hedde 'hen'. Drenge skal opdrages til at tænke på sig selv som potentielle voldtægtsforbrydere, og kvindelige parlamentsmedlemmer slipper afsted med at udråbe fra talerstolene, at samtlige problemer i denne verden skyldes midaldrende mænd. Tvangsfjernelser af børn er rekordhøj, en særlig politisk korrekt form for 'human traficking'.

Og så er der den svenske indvandrerpolitik, der er gået fuldstændig ud af en destruktiv streng, et emne til en anden blog. Det sørgeligste er, at svenskerne dukker nakken for den slags. Simultant med uhæmmet masseindvandring er udvandring af svenskere højere i dag end under den klassiske depressionsudvandring i 1800-tallet! Svenskerne flygter lige nu fra den nye, bløde totalitarisme. Modbydeligt, mentalforstyrrende!

Flashback til til 2001. Det, der skete på den store scene de efterfølgende år, skete synkront for mange mennesker i hele verden. Både begivenhederne, de umiddelbare reaktioner på begivenhederne og tømmermændene dagene-årene efter begivenhederne.

Selve årtusindskiftet var allerede hypet for voldsomt som verdens undergang. Folk så herefter, at der ikke skete noget. Var det blot skrigeri fra hysteriske kællinger og korporatistiske neurotikere? Var det hele en 'drill' var det hele blot en sansesløvning, så 9/11 kunne slå desto hårdere? Der er ingen, der skal bilde mig ind, at man ikke vidste, hvordan styresystemer ville reagere på et simpelt digitalt talskift. Jeg ved, hvad man kan i computermiljøer, og simulation er ikke just et ukendt fænomen. Der var nogen, der brugte årtusindskifter til et ideologisk formål.

Da det næste ramte os, vidste vi ikke, hvad der skete. Vi havde ingen målestok og ingen referencer. Det var så surrealt, at vi glemte at se, høre og tænke. Al sansning og ræsonnement blev sat ud at kraft ved vores egen kraft. De behøvede blot at trykke på udløseren, og så gjorde vi det mod os selv!

Jeg ved i dag, at sort magi findes og praktiseres. Det er ikke noget fra en Harry Potter børneroman eller Hollywood film-repro af samme, det er lige her og nu smack in your face. Og det virker! WTC / 9-11 var et sort magisk sceneri. Som musiker og musikolog kendte jeg udmærket Karlheinz Stockhausen, en af det 20. århundredes mest eksklusive avantgarde-partitur-komponister, mr. Modernism Himself. Han kom med følgende kommentar: 'Hvad vi har set her, er Djævelens Kunstværk'. Hvor vovede han at sige den slags? Jeg husker, at jeg blev vred og fordømte udsagnet som arrogant upassende, og det tog mig flere år, før jeg forstod, hvad han havde sagt, og at han havde formuleret det yderst præcist på sin egen sære måde. Han hyldede det ikke, han identificerede det, han genkendte det. For det var et kunstigt værk sat i scene af et kabbalistisk organ, et djævelsk netværk, hvis eksistens og virke vi indtil da ikke havde været bevidst om. Selvom Netværket havde været særdeles aktivt i hele det 20. århundrede - for blot at lave en afgrænsning - så havde meget, meget få mennesker nogen anelse om dets virke og dets omfang. Alle havde set resultaterne af dets virke, men kun ganske få havde formuleret og identificeret det. Nu trådte Netværket frem på den globale scene og fremviste et 'kunstværk' med det formål at frembringe et afgørende skift, et skift for det næste årtusind.

Det er efterfølgende blevet klart for mig, at vi nogle år forinden rent faktisk var vidne til et andet af Netværkets 'kunstværker'. Jeg indrømmer blankt, at jeg faldt pladask i propaganda-fælden, da hele mediekrigen kørte som velsmurt og vel-serveret indpakning til Bosnien-krigen i 1992. Jeg mistede venner på den konto, fordi jeg forsvarede NATO's indgreb mod den 'onde' Milosevic, der udførte etnisk udrensning. Gjorde han så det? Well, han intervenerede til fordel for de bosniske serbere, men NATO, Clinton, Madeleine Albright og USA's krigsmaskine vandt propagandakrigen, de bosniske muslimer slap afsted med krigsforbrydelser, mens serberne blev straffet og karaktermyrdet i europæiske og amerikanske medier som netop: krigsforbrydere. Ligesom i 2. Verdenskrig fik vi tegnet billedet af de gode, de retfærdige og de heltemodige versus de onde, de uretfærdige og de feje. Var det så sandheden, selv fraregnet det faktum, at alle, der går i krig, får blod og snavs på hænderne? De fleste dengang mente i hvert fald, at de var på sikker grund.

Men al grund efter 9/11 blev pludselig usikker. Som man siger i hospitalsverdenen, hvor jeg arbejder: der indtraf 'utilsigtede hændelser'. Der skete fx det, at Netværket på et tidspunkt følte sig så overbevist om sin egen ufejlbarlighed, at de fejlbedømte situationen og blottede sig. De satsede for stort, og 9/11 var et gigantisk sats, der selvfølgelig virkede nøjagtig efter hensigten i første omgang. Det var udført med den sikre hånd hos sorte-magikeren, den faustiske kunstner.

Men 9/11 blev Netværkets hybris. De blev sjuskede, de blev arrogante, de efterlod sig spor, og de begynde at prale af deres samtlige udåde. Der stak ting og sager ud fra gerningsstedet, og da vi og verden som lamslåede vidner begyndte at komme os ovenpå chokket, eksploderede undergrunden med spørgsmål og selvbestaltede undersøgelses-initiativer. En så stor svinestreg i et af verdens tættest befolkede offentlige rum kunne ikke fejes ind under gulvtæppet. Ground Zero var ikke en fjern flådestation langt ude i Stillehavet. Tiden var heller ikke som før-under-efter Pearl Harbor, for noget nyt og farligt for Netværket havde etableret sig: Internettet. De havde selv opfundet det (Darpa), og nu vendte det sig imod dem.

Samvittigheden - det billige skidt
Dette blev point of no return for mig som for mange andre. Du kan ikke som et menneske med intakt samvittighed se og herefter ikke se, det er uladsiggørligt - medmindre du blive udsat for ekstrem tortur eller lignende. Og selv her kan du kun blive tvunget til at tage andet tøj på.

Sidder jeg og antyder, at 95% af samtlige mennesker ikke har nogen samvittighed? Nej, jeg siger, at det er kombinationen af samvittighed og at have set. Jeg er meget sikker på, at hvis disse 95% havde fået lejlighed til at se om bag facaden og få et nærmere kendskab til den ufortalte sammenhæng mellem hændelser i de store og små rum og i fortid og nutid kaldet virkelighed, så ville de have reageret endog særdeles voldsomt. Det, som har forhindret dette er, at de 95% fra barnsben og hver dag resten af deres liv er blevet vænnet til, at nogle, de andre, de voksne, de lærte, autoriteterne, Staten, videnskaben, religionen, medierne … har vist dem uvirkeligheden. 95% af især den vestlige verdens befolkning er derfor i stand til at forveksle fiktion med non-fiktion.

95% er et meget højt tal, og det er gået op for mig indenfor det seneste årti, at hvis verden skal overleve som et sted, hvor der bor mennesker om blot 50 år, så skal dette procenttal nedbringes ,ret snart. Det findes dernæst forskellige teorier for hvor lavt uvidenhedens og blindhedens tal / hvor højt de videndes og seendes tal skal være, for at skibet vender. Det står også til diskussion, om viden og syn i sig selv er nok. Jeg vil sige viden + samvittighed tilsammen. Sam-vittighed, med-videnhed, viden med en empatisk dimension, hjerne og hjerte. Altså viden, der medtænker og forenes med andres viden. Modsætningen synes at være bedre-videnhed, udelukkelse af andres viden og fragmenteret viden, kaldes viden-skab. Og hvor sørgeligt i øvrigt, at videnskab i for høj grad har ladet sig fragmentere, ideologisere, politisere og korrumpere – vi alene tale og vide, I alene lytte og måbe. Videnskab som Religion 2.0.

Jeg betragter mig selv som med-vidende. Derfor har jeg svært ved at afskrive de 95% af menneskeheden som dumme, umælende, sjælløse får (sheeple, eller som jøderne siger: goyim). Det ville jo pludselig gøre mig til en sær bagvendt form for calvinist. Calvin var i øvrigt jøde, der havde taget et ikke-jødisk navn, han var 'krypto-jøde'. Den eneste grund til – og besynderligt nok nok viste en opinionsundersøgelse det for ganske nylig med grim tydelighed - , at 95% af israelere synes, at det er helt OK, at deres stat folkemyrder beboerne i Gaza, er, at de anser dem som umennesker, som laverestående non-individer, som dyr. Vi ser her en systematisk, kulturel af-empatisering.

Men det er ikke kun her, jeg finder en sådan mental-kulturel afstumpning. Hver gang, jeg møder denne afstumpning, bliver jer først ked af det, dernæst bliver jeg vred. er resultatet af denne sørgmodighed og denne vrede. Den er et korthus, der væltede udenfor såvel som indenfor. Og det er ikke færdigt med at vælte endnu.

Appendix - Jeppe Aakjærs digt,
en opsang/slagsang til de danske husmænd:
(samlede digte 1885-1908)

Raabet stiger i Morg'nens Skjær:
Kommer I snart!
jager som Blæst om Sig og Kjær,
hvisker ved Ruden, hvor Pilen læ'r:
Kommer I snart, I Husmænd!

Tiden ruller med store Ting;
- kommer I snart! -
tungt dog drejer dens Hjul omkring;
I kan øge dets træge Sving;
- kommer I snart, I Husmænd!

Aaget bøjed jer Far og Mor
- kommer I snart! -
knuger jer selv, jert Barn, jer Bror,
venter paa Vuggens spæde Nor
- kommer I snart, I Husmænd!

Landet lyser af Korn og Kvæg
- kommer I snart! -
Eders Kvinde bag klinet Væg
malker Geden med striden Skæg
- kommer I snart, I Husmænd!

Dovne sugede Jordens Marv,
- kommer I snart! -
Tusind Tønder til Taabers Tarv!
Hvad de vraged, blev eders Arv;
- kommer I snart, I Husmænd!

Neg I sanked til andres Lad
- kommer I snart! -
søbed som Tak for Svedens Bad
Trællens Æde af Hundens Fad
- kommer I snart, I Husmænd!

Staa ej bundne jer Bødler bi!
- kommer I snart! -
grib jer Spade og hug jer fri!
I er tusind, hvor de er ti!
- kommer I snart, I Husmænd!


Populære indlæg