The Glee of False Pacifism

In an article in today's Aftonbladet, the resident pacifists Åsa Linderborg and Erik Wijk express their unreserved glee over comments made by some US Marine Corps soldiers in Newsweek and pose the question to the editorial writers in Sweden on “when is enough enough?”

They are referring to the argument that US troops can not (and should not) pull out of Iraq while violence is still at a high level. Their argument has always been that US troops should not have entered into Iraq and should leave at once, consequences be damned.

It is fascinating that their love of fascism, and its agents, supersedes their supposed love of democracy and solidarity. If they truly care for average Iraqi’s, why are they not pleased at the death of Zarqawi? Why do they wish to worsen the security of the country if they feel for the average Iraqi’s welfare? And why do they feel that it is more important to be ideologically consistent than pragmatic about what is best for the Iraqi nation?

The headline of their article should be answered by Linderborg and Wijk themselves: when will they admit that they would rather have Saddam still in power and the status quo in Iraq and the Middle East, rather than steps toward freedom and independence? When will they admit where their sympathies actually lie? And when will they admit that their false pacifism entails coddling totalitarianism and fascism and not opposing it?

The Sound of Silence

It would seem that the leadership of the Liberal Party has succeeded in silencing one of the voices that has caused them some heartache in the press the past few days. When trying to get to "Right Online", the file is not found. Has "Right Online" succumbed to the pressure of the party leadership? Say it isn't so.

Coming together, but where next time?

For every good piece of news there is an underside. With global wealth rising, countries becoming freer and travel costs declining, the world is experiencing a boom in tourism. By all accounts this is a good thing. Traveling and interacting with other cultures, religions and seeing for oneself how others live is essential to understanding and communication that helps to bridge conflict. At the very least, we can hope so.

The bad thing is that all the troops of tourism are leading to the decline of wondrous places. Not the interest in them, but their very survival as Newsweek points out this week. What a sad development. The great interest of world travelers for places such as Luxor, Maccu Picchu and the Great Wall of China is leading to their destruction.

As the world gets more and more interconnected and Cosmopolitanism seems to be finally getting its chance to thrive, we find that our actions are leading to the demise of historic and splendorous things. It would seem that the only hope is the pull of capital. Those who live by the tourist trade (and it’s no small number of individuals or countries) will be forced to spend money to keep the things that make them money in the first place. By all economic accounts, this seems like a wise thing to do. For the rest of us such investments are truly gratifying so that we, and future generations, can see what amazing things those before us have created.