“We Need Not Celebrate Our Own Disintegration”

Back in April of 2005 we posted our first original translation, a two-part interview from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten with the American professor Jonathan Friedman, who at the time was teaching at the University of Lund in Sweden.

The following article describes the trials and tribulations of Prof. Friedman’s wife Kajsa Ekholm Friedman back in 1997. Many thanks to LN for translating this post from the blog Invandring och mörkläggning:

It was just as prejudiced and mean a quarter of a century ago

by Professor Emeritus Karl-Olov Arnstberg
March 1, 2022

At the end of April and the beginning of May 1997, the social anthropologist Kajsa Ekholm Friedman gave a lecture at a gathering organised at a hotel in the centre of Solna, by the organisation Folkviljan och massinvandringen. Those who listened to her were mainly middle-aged ladies and gentlemen, worried about the consequences of immigration. On DN Debate she wrote a week later:

How can one get the idea that multiculturalism in the sense of multi-ethnicity is enriching for a country? In fact, alien ethnicity has always caused serious problems, from antiquity onwards. […] Alien ethnicity is devastating for social solidarity, for the glue that makes a society work. In a multi-ethnic society, there is no “we” at the national level. Instead, people direct their loyalty towards their own ethnic groups, with the resulting lack of loyalty and solidarity towards society at large and towards those who are not part of their own “we” group.

Ekholm Friedman gave the example of Los Angeles. She also pointed out that neither Native Americans, Hawaiians, Maoris, nor Australian Aborigines perceive the multiculturalism of their respective communities as particularly enriching for themselves. Towards the end of her article, she used unfortunate imagery:

Today, the situation is very different. Western Europe is in decline, and, moreover, our former homogeneity is being broken up by the insinuation of outside tentacles. Europe’s colonial past may mean that we should not complain, but on the other hand we need not celebrate our own disintegration.

Two days later, the Social Democrat Juan Fonseca and the economic historian Mauricio Rojas wrote in DN that the article was part of a Swedish conspiracy to build a Swedish equivalent of the French National Front:

If this neo-Nazi rhetoric were merely an outburst from a hateful assistant professor, we could safely put the article to rest, but that is not the case. On the contrary. Something important is happening in our country.

Fonseca and Rojas do not spare the chestnut when they end their article by urging democratic Sweden, the country we love and are part of, to show that Sweden is an open society. The fact that they call Sweden open does not mean open in terms of how the debate should be conducted. Without the slightest hesitation, they conclude that Ekholm Friedman’s opinion piece is neo-Nazi rhetoric. It is also interesting that they describe her prose as hateful, given that the criticism is not directed against immigrants but against an immigration policy that Ekholm Friedman perceives, on a scientific basis, as clueless and ill-informed. They could also have taken her concerns seriously and entered into a debate: Is it really true that immigration and multiculturalism are disruptive to society?

Another debater who fights for “the good”, the Kurdish journalist Kurdo Baksi, reported Ekholm Friedman to the police for incitement to hatred and sedition. He begins his denunciation in DN on 12 May as follows: “On DN Debate, the ever-confused anti-immigrant and assistant professor of social anthropology Kajsa Ekholm Friedman wrote that multiculturalism has always meant serious problems.” He announces that he is “pissed off at Kajsa Ekholm Friedman and all others who claim that my ethnic background is a problem”. He cites societies where multi-ethnicity is said to work — Switzerland, Canada and Iran. He then lists all sorts of “immigrants”, from people to saxophones, and concludes with the rhetorical question, “What would Sweden be without all this?” The artist Dilba and her sister Dilsa follow the same line when they point out what immigrants of various kinds have brought to Sweden. They point out that “it is not immigration that is the problem but the mechanisms that discriminate against immigrants.”

The Red Cross Youth Federation and the association Youth Against Racism are demanding that the Lund University Board impose a professional ban on Ekholm Friedman. The University Board never raised the issue, nor did Kurdo Baksi’s police report lead to any prosecution.

Four leading social anthropologists — Gudrun Dahl, Ulf Hannerz, Karl Eric Knutsson and Kaj Århem — also strongly attack Ekholm Friedman. In DN on 12 May, they begin as follows:

As representatives of the subject of social anthropology, we have followed with dismay the debate surrounding associate professor Kajsa Ekholm Friedman’s participation in a meeting with the organisation Folkviljan och mass immigration and read her post on DN Debatt on 6 May.

Their rejection is absolutely unquestionable. The professors stress that they are enlightened and good humanitarians, that “people fleeing war, persecution and social breakdown are worthy of our support and our human concern.” They write that “we should not support groups and organisations that hand out mental blinders to preserve an aging Swedishness.” Of course, they are also internationalists. Sweden cannot return to being a monocultural and monoethnic society. The only little finger they really give to Friedman’s perspective (if not to her as a researcher) is with this sentence:

But when Sweden hastily shifted from assuming cultural homogeneity to supporting organised cultural diversity, perhaps this policy was not yet based on sufficient insights into the problems of integration processes. A more in-depth discussion is needed here, in which the experiences of recent decades also have their place.

They point out, as scholars always do, that more research is needed, and that this should be about our own times. For their part, however, they hardly give any examples of this, but the only Swedish empirical evidence they cite is an historical exposé that demonstrates the great importance of immigrants: ‘Even Sigtuna, the most Swedish of all places, is an old cultural meeting place where merchants and craftsmen from different cultures met.’

It is clear that if these professors have their way, Ekholm Friedman can consider herself ostracised from the social anthropological community. In other contexts, too, attempts are made to exclude her. In SU-Nytt, Stockholm University’s internal information organ (no. 5/97), one can read that Kristina Svartholm, a lecturer in Nordic languages, no longer wants to remain on the Swedish Institute’s research grants committee if Kajsa Ekholm Friedman is allowed to keep her seat as a member. She strongly questions “the appropriateness of a researcher who has shown such poor judgment and expressed herself in such an unscientific manner holding a position of trust…”

In Svenska Dagbladet on 25 May, the editorial writer Håkan Arvidsson notes that virtually all commentators start with a caricature of Ekholm Friedman’s opinion, which is then dismissed as unscientific:

One can of course, as always, discuss careless formulations, and I can see the controversial nature of Ekholm Friedman’s position, but I can also see that she makes apt and thought-provoking observations. The large-scale immigration of peoples with different ethnic identities and cultural traditions undoubtedly creates social tensions. Otherwise, what is the ongoing debate about integration versus assimilation about? Why do we have a gigantic state immigration system at all? What do all the municipal immigration administrations do, if everything is all problem-free harmony? You don’t have to be very perceptive to see how language and cultural communication problems are increasing in the world of schools, how worrisome discrimination is spreading in the labour market or how parts of most large cities are tending to ghettoise.

Arvidsson also notes that all the debaters and scholars make it clear that they are open to an unbiased discussion, while at the same time making it clear that they do not want to engage in it with Ekholm Friedman or anyone else with similar views. In other words, they can only discuss with those who share the same basic values. Håkan Arvidsson concludes with a real roar:

Swedish public opinion has periodically shown an astonishing magnanimity, as when it came to giving Jan Myrdal a platform to proclaim his firm support for massacres and genocide around the world. Nothing seems to be able to interfere with his right to column space. Although he has been repeating his bloodthirsty message for 40 years, the media are not tired of it. He is constantly slaughtered, but like the mythical madman Särimner, he is always resurrected the next day just as fat and smug. Why does Kajsa Ekholm Friedman not have the same right to speak her mind and to borrow our ear? She has not supported genocide, terror or dictatorship. She has — based on her original DN article and the two clarifications she has been pressured to make, SDS 23/5 and DN 24/5 — only wanted to problematise the notion of multicultural society. In doing so, however, she has accidentally wounded the moral self-image of the folk-intellectuals, and that is the limit of what our public discourse can endure.
Kajsa Ekholm Friedman returned to DN Debatt on 24 May and defended herself against her critics. The fact that she had to start by explaining at some length that she is neither racist nor xenophobic is a kind of measure of how she has perceived the storm of criticism to which she has been subjected:

Throughout my adult life I have been surrounded by non-Swedes, I have been curious about the foreign and have found it easy to make friends with non-Swedes, especially Africans. In addition, I am married to an immigrant, also a Jew, and two of my children are half-Jews and “second-generation immigrants” for that reason. Over the years, a large number of non-Swedes have felt welcome in our home.

As for the destructiveness of multi-ethnicity, she writes that it is one thing for economically vital societies to be able to integrate or assimilate foreigners, and quite another for societies in decline:

What tends to happen when “the wheels stop turning” is dehomogenization, old identities reassert themselves, polarization and social unrest increase. Just when the game’s players could really use all their wits and cooperation, they lose both. Instead, sects and conflicts flourish. Can our society escape this fate, which has befallen all flourishing societies before us?

Of the fifty or so contributions to the debate that I read, not a single one sided unreservedly with Mrs. Friedman. On the other hand, there were shades of dissent, from those who thought she should be dismissed, ostracised and convicted of incitement to hatred and sedition, to those who felt that it was enough to refute her views. Håkan Arvidsson was the only dissenting voice. He said what everyone already knew to be true.

Although it was probably not her intention, Ekholm Friedman managed to expose what a strong moral field immigration to Sweden was already 25 years ago. As Svante Nycander wrote in DN Debatt on February 18, 1998: “Among those who set the tone in Sweden there is a great, anxiety-ridden fear of not being considered one hundred per cent pure in terms of racism and Nazism.”

15 thoughts on ““We Need Not Celebrate Our Own Disintegration”

  1. I don’t understand what the Swedes are paying for. This is a peaceful country that lost its “teeth” after they were pulled out by Petr 1. (By the way, the Swedes still have not forgiven us for this).
    I have great respect for this country, because they have used their small, climatically unfavorable territory so wisely to become a prosperous state.
    What are the Swedes paying for? Why are they forced to be LGBT? Why is their country being flooded with low IQ migrants?
    A few years ago, one of the comments wrote to me in the context: “Because the Swedes are so beautiful.”

    • @ Elena

      Re: “What are the Swedes paying for? Why are they forced to be LGBT? Why is their country being flooded with low IQ migrants?”

      There is no rhyme or reason to what is happening in Sweden and in similar societies across Europe. There’s no cosmic karma involved. That’s not it at all. Let us be perfectly clear about the crime and its perpetrators…

      The deliberate destruction of western civilization is being undertaken by the globalist oligarchs, the billionaires who seek a NWO (new world order) and believe that it cannot come into being without first weakening if not destroying what remains of European civilization. Men like George Soros and his compatriots and collaborators. Billionaires for whom the word “enough” does not exist.

      It sounds like a badly-written plot for a James Bond film, but the threat is real and so are the people carrying it out.

      If you research the life and work of the founder of European globalism, Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), you will discover that there was a distinctly racial/eugenic component to his vision of the Europe of the future.

      Kalergi claimed for most of his life that he was not a Nazi and did not share their views – but the facts tell a different story. He may not have been a national socialist, but his views on race and eugenics were close to those of the Nazis, albeit of a slightly different flavor.

      Kalergi was biracial; his father was Austro-Hungarian and his mother Japanese. Perhaps his identity shaped his views on what Europe should become, for he believed that the “ideal” European of the future would be a racial hybrid of European and darker-skinned peoples of the Third World, in particular those from Africa and the Middle East.

      The open-borders immigration policies of nations like Sweden mirror the views of Kalergi and the other Pan-Europeans way too closely to be mere coincidence. At least at present, that is the conclusion towards which the evidence points.

      A “United Europe” was just one more stepping stone on the way to global governance, which is what the globalists ultimately favor.

      Re: “A few years ago, one of the comments wrote to me in the context: “Because the Swedes are so beautiful.”

      It sounds like a pat answer, but it isn’t. European civilization, which has dominated world affairs for the past several centuries, is not hated because it failed, but because it has been so successful and so dominant in so many ways.

      This is where Islam re-enters the picture, for Muslims are taught from a very early age that non-Muslim civilization – the infidel world or what is termed “Dar al-Harb” (The House of War) – is the source of evil and discord in the world. There can be no “peace” or “submission” until the whole world lies within “Dar al-Islam,” or in English, “The House of Peace/Submission.” Namely, the Islamic world.

      Infidel women, such as the attractive fair-haired and fair-skinned women of places like Sweden, are considered by sharia law to be the rightful reward and war prize for the soldier of Allah who goes forth to conquer infidel lands in the name of the faith. Indeed, Mohammed himself implored his followers some one-thousand four hundred years ago to wage jihad in Islam’s name, saying to them “Do you want the Banu al-Asfar?”

      This is the Arabic term for the fair-skinned women of Byzantium, modern-day eastern Europe and Russia. The women were literally called “children of the yellow,” a reference to their fair hair and light skin, which contrasted so sharply with the darker features of women found in the native lands of Islam. Even today, a jihadist who “takes” such sought-after women can fetch a good price for them at the slave market or in the underworld of human trafficking.

      As for the globalists, they have made common cause with the believers of Islam, since both desire the destruction of western civilization and Christianity. The soldiers of Allah are a very useful tool to the globalists indeed, as they attack western civilization and sow chaos, violence and discord throughout.

      It is likely, even probable, that some of the most-influential globalists are themselves Sunni Muslims, some of the richest and most-influential Arab oil sheiks, to name one example.

  2. More pussy-footing about. The problem is the importation of islam and the problems willfully caused by Muslim men. These problems have been exacerbated by leftist enablers.


    We didn’t ask to have it.
    They imposed it all the same,
    Although it only made things worse.
    It’s compulsory to praise it,
    Got a problem? Don’t you raise it.
    It’s vibrant, it’s exciting, it’s diverse.


    There was a conference for progressive liberals.
    They all fell ill with a mystery ailment.
    They were taken to the Progressive Liberal Hospital.
    Tests revealed a vibrant and diverse array of bacteria.
    The Hospital operated a Multi-Bacterial policy.
    No Bacteriphobia was permitted.
    The patients all died.
    The hospital had to be closed down.

    • Below is a translation of the Danish original from 2002 (!) of this very important article.(A wise and insightful man even then knew that things would go to hell for Sweden.):

      The downfall of the Abendland

      • LN is having technical difficulties, and was unable to paste in the machine translation of the Snaphanen piece. He asked me to paste it here for him:

        The demise of the Evening Land

        Jonathan Friedman © Snaphanen.dk,

        The suppression of free speech in Sweden is a symptom of something bigger and worse: the last convulsions of Western civilization as a whole, says a professor of social anthropology – American and based at Lund University – Jonathan Friedman in conversation with Niels Lillelund.
        Jonathan Friedman is a Jew and a New Yorker, and as he approaches the door, wearing curly hair, a Hawaiian shirt, khaki trousers and bare toes, he looks like Bob Dylan would have looked had he toured a little less and eaten a little healthier and more regularly. The living room of the large apartment in central Lund looks like the realisation of the multi-ethnic vision, the modern, light sofa, the African art on the walls and floors and the classic porcelain fireplace in the corner.

        The man is a professor of social anthropology, tricky to watch with sleepy, intelligent eyes, but make no mistake; he says things you can only say in Sweden if you’re not Swedish: “I almost go and wait for all hell to break loose. But for now they leave me alone and I have only met with criticism internally at the university. If I had been Swedish I would have been beheaded, now they just ignore me.”

        Friedman works at Lund University, as does his Swedish wife, who is also a social anthropologist and professor. And she has not been treated with the same kid gloves. Kajsa Ekholm Friedman made the mistake of accepting an invitation from the Association for Popular Will and Mass Immigration, an association that no longer exists but was typically made up of pensioners and disenchanted social democrats critical of immigration. Ekholm is not a member of the association and does not share its views, but the mere fact that she had spoken in that forum triggered a demand from 27 teachers and students in Lund that she be removed. Jonathan Friedman knows a lot about these kinds of mechanisms. He worked in New York, Paris and Copenhagen before coming to Lund, and he has just finished a book entitled PC Worlds, an analysis of the phenomenon of political correctness.

        The ecology of debate
        – We are talking about the concept of “ecology of debate,” introduced by a Swedish sociology professor at the University of Copenhagen, Margareta Bertilsson:

        “The right to speak must be balanced against the fact that they or the speaker also have something to enrich the conversation with. The right to speak also implies the obligation to exercise responsibility, we take up the time of others. Protecting the ‘ecology’ of public discourse is as important as protecting freedom of expression,” she wrote in the Weekendavisen on 12 July this year.

        Jonathan Friedman is not shocked. “The suppression of free speech in Sweden is part of a powerful mechanism. Now you’re over here during the election campaign, and you’ll see journalists and media trying to make the debate look big and broad – by simply shifting the focus from what’s important and talking about something else, like traffic policy. On immigration policy you can’t have a critical discussion, you avoid the issue.”


        “For me, it’s part of a long tradition. In the US, for example, political correctness is a university phenomenon, in public life and among ordinary people it is a joke. In Sweden, there is a close connection between the various elite groups, politicians, journalists, etc. They socialize privately, they marry each other, they move in the same social circles. The political class closes in on itself, add to that the fact that the Social Democrats have and have had something of a monopoly on power. This provides a degree of security – but also an uncertainty about what will happen if that bubble, that view of the world, suddenly bursts.

        The elites, by virtue of their isolation, have become increasingly afraid of the people and what they can contain. The attitude is that people in general are dangerous and stupid. The political class has moved up and away from the people. It is cosmopolitan in outlook and sees itself as above the nation, rather than part of it. Economically this is supported by the fact that the wages of this very class are the fastest growing of all.”

        Absurdly undemocratic But is this news? ”

        There has been a shift. When I came to this country, it was still the case that you could call your politician. It was a healthy democracy. In Denmark, where I lived in the 1970s, there was already a political class. It is the one that has emerged here even more – and they are nervous about their power and what might shake it. That’s why they shut up critics like the Sweden Democrats. It’s a legal party, they’re just not allowed to speak. That is absurdly undemocratic. They marginalise them, bully them out … and call them undemocratic.

        In fact, you completely shift the meaning of democracy. You say: democracy is a certain way of thinking, a set of opinions, and if you do not share them, you are not democratic, and then we distance ourselves from you, you should be eliminated. The people, that is not democratic, that is us, the elite. It’s grotesque, and it’s certainly not democracy, rather a kind of moral dictatorship.”

        Jonathan Friedman believes that the situation in Sweden is also special because it has a long tradition of maintaining a correct surface.

        “Bergman’s films are about nothing else, about the demons that lurk beneath the dry and correct surface.

        A party like the Sweden Democrats is like a national libido that must be suppressed. The starting point is that deep down we are all racists if it is not controlled. Just as we would all become drunkards if it weren’t for Systembolaget – the latter is actually what a doctor once said to me. In all seriousness. It’s a very interesting cultural phenomenon that keeps recurring. People are afraid of their own shadow. Schools don’t dare fly Swedish flags or celebrate Christmas, and if you ask a Swedish minister (as a journalist did, ed.) if he’s Swedish, he hastens to assure you that he’s not, he’s a mixture of everything else.

        The Swedish Supreme Court has ruled in principle that racism is a Swedish phenomenon, something that by definition is practised by Swedes and not by others. Although many gang rapes, in which immigrants are heavily over-represented among the perpetrators, have a clear racist element. But you don’t want to know, and we can’t know.”

        Weekend racists is Friedman’s word for many Swedes who get drunk on weekends, when it is generally accepted, and then unleash all the repressed hatred. He mentions a leading politician who used to speak warmly for immigration and integration, and who simply had to be thrown out of the Grand Hotel one Saturday night for shouting and screaming his racist views. In a fire pit.

        Racist statements
        Jonathan Friedman won’t name names, but his example has recently been surpassed. A Swedish journalist, posing as an ordinary citizen, got a whole series of Swedish politicians to confirm the most grotesque racist statements and caught it on tape. Several of the elected representatives have had to resign following the publication on Swedish TV. “Look at how the police treat a drunk on a Tuesday. And how they react at the weekend. On weekends it is accepted to get drunk, many simply go berserk. At the weekend, it all has to come out, so try to transfer that model to politics.”

        Crime on the rise
        But the criticism and problems won’t go away, will they?

        “In Sweden there is a lot of conflict and growing insecurity. We have seen several incidents of what I would call a classic racist nature, where two population groups clash violently. Crime is on the rise. The new arrivals are very much unemployed, and that costs the welfare state a lot of money. The welfare state is, of course, based on closeness; it has to look after a limited group of people. It cannot cope at all with an open society, but that sort of realisation is too big for politicians in general. They think very short-term. I think it is absurd to think that, for example, many thousands of Somalis can be “integrated” into a society like Sweden’s. But there are academics who believe it. And politicians have to believe it, they base their whole existence on tomorrow being better than today. It won’t. So what does a politician do when he has to face the fact that the future looks much darker still…?”

        Close his eyes and hope for the best? ”

        Yes. And in a way I understand it, because it’s a whole vision of society that’s about to collapse. Sweden is a close-knit society where the idea of community takes precedence over everything else. In the town I come from, nobody cares. You avoid eye contact on the street, you say how are you and don’t mean anything by it, you’re constantly trying to create a vacuum around your own person. It’s extremely individualistic. In the Swedish model, the motto is that either something is centrally controlled – or there is chaos.”

        But the idea of the public home is also challenged. And the Swedes are tackling it in their own way. The 1997 Integration Act states directly. As a large group of people have their origins in another country, the Swedish population lacks a common history. Affiliation with Sweden and support for the basic values of society are therefore more important for integration than a common historical origin. Friedman shakes his head.

        “In reality, the world is thought of as consisting of a number of different races and peoples. The history of Sweden is abolished and replaced by the history of the different races. This law would elevate the state above the nation and let the essence of nationality be an adherence to a set of values. But in reality, the Swedish sense of nationality is just as tied to culture and history as, for example, the Danish.”

        And chaos can come anyway, can’t it? Are we heading for the explosion?

        “I think so. For many reasons. Economically alone, it can’t go on. Sweden has fallen from the top spot to 17th place in the list of the world’s richest countries. The welfare state is in deep crisis. Taxes are holding people down – consider that in the US, where tax progression is nothing like here, yet the bulk of taxes come from the richest. Here the tax comes mainly from the bottom. And the tax base is shrinking day by day. Capital is fleeing and people without education and resources are coming in. So the state has to run up huge debts to cope with the cuts. The newcomers are marginalised and the lower-ranking public employees, such as teachers, are proletarianised. On the other hand, a huge black economy emerges, which is tacitly accepted.

        And immigrants do not contribute to that economy, on the contrary. Even in the United States, where welfare benefits are much lower than here, it has been demonstrated by a Harvard economist that immigrants cost society money. It is also typical to see that in the United States it is the blacks who are most opposed to immigration – after all, they are the ones who are threatened, it is their jobs that the new immigrants can take. ”

        Against deep financial crisis And yet there is no sign of revolt in the people, for example against the tax?

        “No, people are still paying a higher price for a poorer service. But it won’t last. Western societies are moving, I think, towards a deep financial crisis, and the only people who don’t notice it are the political class, because it has never been better off. In that sense, the situation is reminiscent of the last 100 years of the Roman Empire” It sounds violent “Yes, but one should not be blind to the great historical lines. After all, the migration period that is talked about so much these years was precisely the result of societies collapsing all around and people being forced to migrate. Just like today.”

        Life on several levels And then you have to ask: How will it end?

        “I don’t know. But I do have some ideas. A society as outlined in the movie Blade Runner is closer than you think. A society where life is lived on several levels, and where the paths between the different layers are guarded by armed policemen. In Los Angeles, you can already see construction spreading across the slums. And round benches are being built to make sure the bums can’t sleep there. It takes so little for our neat society to collapse. Take something like Rosengården in Malmö – if the municipality suddenly has no more money to pump into it, it’ll be black slum in five years. Or less.”

        In a way, an old-fashioned class society?

        “Yes, it’s unfashionable to talk about classes. But rarely has it been more topical. Much more topical than in the 1970s, when everyone was talking about it. Class is coming back, and many people are going down – but you can’t even deal with that in a place like Sweden. In English it is called downward mobility. It is characteristic that there is no equivalent concept in Swedish.”

        Can we do something about it?

        “I certainly doubt that anything will be done about it. Modern politicians all over the West talk as if there is only one way. They have the same economic advisers telling them the same thing all the time. Management theories have long since gained a foothold in politics, the power of positive thinking controls the process. It almost seems as if they have given up.”

  5. For a complete archive of Friedman´s & possibly Ekholms writings in early GoV, where do we like-minded dissidents look for the multi-indexed listing or the archive?

  6. The problem these globullist did not take into consideration for all their planning is human nature, and human nature is tribal. By letting the 3rd world of uncivilized savages into our western civilized countries is that it will at some point turn us into very uncivilized methodical killers of all things 3rd world, there will not be Geneva Conventions or so called laws of war to protect these 3rd worlders, from our vengeance and wrath, it will be very much Old Testament where it will make ole Hitler blush with envy. In the end, it very much comes down to them, or us.

  7. @ G

    History is littered with the corpses of powerful people who believed that they could set loose the dogs of war and then control them for their own purposes. The French Revolution is an example: Robespierre enacted the so-called “Reign of Terror,” in which scores of people, many of them not guilty of anything wrong whatsoever other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time, were beheaded via the guillotine. In the end, Robespierre heard the whisper of the blade itself, as his head was claimed before the fire of fanaticism burned itself out. There is a lesson in that episode of history, for those powerful people smart-enough to heed it. Certain events, once placed in motion, are very difficult to stop. So think twice and perhaps stay your hand instead.

Comments are closed.