Nanny-methods nothing for a democratic school...

Mary Poppins.

Mary Poppins:
[Spoken]
In ev'ry job that must be done
There is an element of fun
You find the fun and snap!
The job's a game

[Sung]
And ev'ry task you undertake
Becomes a piece of cake
A lark! A spree! It's very clear to see that

A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way

A robin feathering his nest
Has very little time to rest
While gathering his bits of twine and twig
Though quite intent in his pursuit
He has a merry tune to toot
He knows a song will move the job along - for

A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way

[Interlude]

The honey bee that fetch the nectar
From the flowers to the comb
Never tire of ever buzzing to and fro
Because they take a little nip
From ev'ry flower that they sip
And hence (And hence),
They find (They find)
Their task is not a grind.

Ah-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h ah!

A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
The medicine go down-wown
The medicine go down
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
In a most delightful way

From one of my teachers’ papers today; the editor's chronicle “Nanny-methods nothing for a democratic school.”

Where you can read that the trend with harder grips against children in our society has got an against-reaction. The [Swedish] professors Mats Ekholm, Hans-Åke Scherp and Bengt-Erik Andersson have reacted strongly in a petition against super nanny methods like expelling, taking no notice of, and putting children in the corner - and against the government’s policy with harder grips in the school.

The professors want us to meet children and adolescents as we wish them to be – responsible taking, enterprising and critically reflecting. They also want that Sweden shall incorporate the UN’s child’s conventions in the Swedish legislations. And many agree with them. Almost 20,000 (6,000??) people have signed the petition Barnuppropet ”Barn har rätt – Lagstadga barns rätt att utvecklas med lust i trygghet!” or the Child Petition ”Children have the right – Lay the Children’s Rights to Development With Lust in Security Down by Law!”

That psychical abuse or mistreatment of children is sent as entertainment in TV and that the methods are taught on different courses, of course influences how we think and react the editor thinks [this was one of his better contributions, because I haven't been so fond of this newspaper and its tame and lame views, colored by this editor??]. The school and teachers are influenced by this too.

During the former century the Swedish society made a journey from an undemocratic society to a democratic. From an undemocratic school where the students were disciplined with violence to a school with a democratic and humane outlook on mankind.

This journey has been very positive for both students and society. Swedish students are frank, open and creative and they dare to call things in question they think are wrong. Swedish students don’t do their school tasks because they fear their teachers, but because they have an inherent lust to learn. This is an outlook on students and a school we shall take care of.

Do we really need sugar to help the medicine go down???

From the petition in my a little free translation:

“The former century’s big catchword – the child’s century [see pictures here from a series in Swedish TV on The Child's Century] – quickly disappeared from those in power and moulders of public opinion. The media producers use to send psychic abuse of children as entertainment. From the ideal of the Super nanny parents are taught to expel and ignore their child when it needs nearness and warmth. Standing in the corner is reintroduced but is called time-out.

Education programs are brought about for school and child care where the personnel are trained to discipline with authoritarian shutting off (suspension) and humiliating treatment. Instead of teaching children to respect themselves and other people it is raised to staking on own profits (gains): what can I loose or win doing as the grown ups want?

The government is walking at the head of a hardened fashion in meeting children and young people. In its rhetoric knowledge is honored. It would be valuable if the government uses systematic knowledge also in the education area [They ought use the knowledge that they say they honor - quite ironically!!]. Contrary to scientific findings punishment is advocated as a raising method, for example in form of detention./…/

Young people grow when they are put demands on and when they meet challenges in safe contexts, where it is allowed and desirable that they are learning by mistakes as well as ‘successful tricks’. Young people are growing best in circumstances when they are accepted/recognized and when their way of thinking and feeling is met with respect. We urge ministers/secretaries and other moulders of opinions ceasing to treat children and young people as less worth. Show them respect instead. Use science and well-tried experiences when initiatives are taken so that young people are allowed to develop from desires, joy and engagement in secure circumstances. Meet children and young people as we want them to be – responsible taking, enterprising, creative and critically reflecting.”

People having fun:

George W. Bush - and other phenomena in the world…

[Slightly updated January 18]. Some loud thinking, inspired by things I read and have read recently...

A leader writer in the leader "Goodbye to Bush" this morning about George W. Bush and his last speech as president (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“Yesterday George W. Bush held his retirement speech as president.

It was short, vigorous and – as superficial and petrified as always.

His eight years in the White House has made him to one of USA’s less popular presidents ever, the country’s reputation abroad is worse than ever, he leaves more ongoing wars after himself and on top a budget deficit that in itself has transferred power to financiers in Asia. But he is stuck to the conviction that the policy has been successful and the proof of that is that USA since September 11 has managed to fight terror attacks.

In his speech his fundamentalist revival Christianity revived: good and evil stand against each other in this world and no compromises are possible.

How was Bush possible? That’s the ten-thousand-crown-question, a question the historians will pose once. How could he win a second period as president? USA regressed during the 21st Century, a great deal of the population sank into a right Christian and neoconservative slough that made them incapable of understanding themselves, their country, their time/era.

Maybe Bush became the president that came to administer an American empire that at last passed zenith?

Now he retires. The world can start anew again.”

Can it? Does it? Hopefully it does.

In a local newspaper it was a review, ”The shopping culture rules our lives”, today of Zygmunt Bauman’s book “Consuming Life.”

From the review (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“You are first and foremost consumer – everything else is of subordinate meaning. Each human being is valued first an foremost for his ability to buy and for his creditworthiness./…/

What happens to the humanity and our abilities when we are reduced to shopping creatures only?/…/

According to Bauman even we human beings are above all [above everything else; not really seen as human beings with feelings and emotions and a lot of other needs!? All needs are reduced to hat of consuming?] transformed into goods or merchandises. /…/ In this information era being invisible is like being dead [does it have to be? If you had been seenby your first caregivers?].

The dream of becoming famous attracts more and more people today. The central motif is being seen in all our medias./…/

The own self is in the center of attention./../

This hyper fast chase on kicks is called development and modernity when it in reality is about rapidly arisen consumption of narcissism and of general gossip./…/

Constantly we have to become convinced that our cars, kitchen fixtures, clothes, accessories have to become changed of different reasons. In the shopping culture the drive to throw things away is as powerful and necessary as to shop. Can we find an explanation to why so many people don’t feel well in this consumption society? Why do so many people have to eat antidepressants? Yes, in parts because this shopping culture needs clear feelings of lack of satisfaction and lack of something substantial./…/

The flight from ourselves enriches other people. /…/ We have to be on an ongoing chase for ideal ideas about our lives. Everything can become changed to something better./…/

Another gloomy consequence is a selfish society and people standing completely indifferent for notions like solidarity and human beings equal values. If a human being merely is valued as merchandise the whole idea of brotherly philosophy falls. The step from a collective society and collective responsibility to an individual and privatized societal system changes the human beings’ attitudes and ability to engage in other people.

The neoliberalism gave the shopping culture free scope more than twenty years ago. This has also in a very thorough way changed human beings attitudes, habits and opinions.”

Why are we valued so much, and sometimes only, for our outer appearance? Why aren’t we seen as living human beings and why don’t we see ourselves as living human beings, with feelings, needs, emotions etc. Or how do we see our feelings, needs, emotions? And why do we see them as we do?

Why is the own self in the center as it is? Is it a sound self centeredness? What is unsound? And from where does this self centeredness come? What would a sound development lead to?

What is real development, what would real development be? Both in the society as in individuals?

What are we lacking and what needs do we try to satisfy in different ways? Some not with consumption either!

But in other ways. Maybe sometimes very subtle and disguised…

Can true, genuine respect for individuals exist in a/the collective? If not why?

Bauman thinks that a mixed economy protects people from the capitalism’s varieties. He speaks about social rights [another Swedish leader writer wrote recently about "Forgotten rights"!!], a feeling of belonging and human solidarity. Simply a more equal society. And of course this includes new goals for politics concerning the climate, with a much more “sober” and planned consumption. He also writes about the individualisation of problems that in their bottom actually are collective [see paragraph 6 in this linked Wikipedia-article]! My comment: Yes, indivuals are blamed for problems that actually aren't their personal. But at the same time other people, preferably in power, escape their responsibilities. Quite ironically: and they are also given freedom from responsibility (liability) from the people and not least other people in power.

Yes, what are we striving for and why?

I think the roots lies in our first twenty years in life…

The roots for violence are not unknown, no.

Why do we have the leaders we have? Why are those persons seeking power?

See the following articles and essays: “Bush isn’t a Moron, He’s a Cunning Sociopath” by Bev Conover, “D.C. Shrink Diagnosis Bush as a Paranoid, Sadistic Megalomaniac”, “George W. Bush’s projection dislocation of self” by Terence O'Leary, “See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics” Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker, “So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?” by psychologist Oliver James, “The Madness of George W. Bush – A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis” by Paul Levy.

The Children’s Ombudsman in Sweden on children's rights...

from a walk today.

picture taken from here "Who is Lena Nyberg?"

[Slightly edited and updated December 14].

Yesterday at one of my workplaces I read the article ”We need an entirely different school debate”, from ”Nattvandrarmagasinet” number 2 Oktober 2008, where the Children’s Ombudsman in Sweden Lena Nyberg gave her thoughts on the school and children. In my a little free translation from Swedish:

Lena Nyberg spoke about adults in school and thinks the competence in the personnel is altogether crucial.

I agree. Something we need to develop, and need help developing, and talking about we working in the school or with young people in health care etc.

She thinks that it is important that adults manage to see the students. Children need to be seen and motivated she says. So we need to see ourselves in the first place (my addition).

“Today the school most often has an adult perspective I think is very out-of-date, obsolete. We shall raise our kids to independent individuals, who can call things/phenomena in question, be critical, curious and eager to learn. Besides they shall gradually be competitive in a European and international world, and put Sweden on the map.

Against this we have a school system where the idea in many respect is that the students shall be quiet, disciplined and do as they are told. This doesn’t fit together so to speak.”

she declares and looks like a real warrior!!!!

“We need an entirely new school debate!

Yes, a school debate where important questions about the basis of values [värdegrundsfrågor] are at the focus.”

She asks for a mutual respect between us adults and our children and young people. My comment: But it is this with power imbalance. So this with showing respect lies more on the adult… Or the greatest responsibility in this respect lies on the adult.

She also speaks about children’s right to culture. She thinks aesthetic learning processes are interesting, as well as their connection to the article 12 in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the article she thinks is a great tool when we shall meet children’s and young people’s needs.

It reads as follows:

Article 12

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

For Lena it is evident that children are entitled to culture and different ways of expressing themselves. An important tool helping them to create a better self-esteem and thus a greater safety, as she expresses it.

I agree. And this goes along with ideas like the ones in Reggio Emilia for instance. And her ideas about respect for the child with the work in the Summerhill school.

When it comes to the spare time and sports sector she has a clear opinion.

“The children and young people of our time are consumers. If there is money there is a great selection of spare time, but the risk is that we get a dividing up between those who can afford and those who can’t afford.

The sports activities play an important role. /…/

My only wish is that they [the ones responsible there] could better meet each individual’s needs, so that each one can continue with her/his big interest so long as he/she wishes and that one became even better in reaching more children and young people.”

It suddenly struck me yesterday in the middle of everything (there has been a couple of articles about aesthetic expressions and occupations recently, maybe because of coming changes in our gymnasium education that are announced) about the ones in power in Sweden today (the politicians, especially in our current government): do they begrudge young people being alive, free, autonomous, self-secure in a healthy and genuine way?

That they (the ones in power) aren't genuinely alive, free, autonomous, is that why they are now talking so much (entirely) about discipline, grades etc.??? And not about other solutions? And is that he reason why they see the problems in school as they see?

But we aren't born in this way. We weren't born emotionally numb or dead. We became that way. But we don't have to continue being like this. However, the work to recover can be really tough. Really, really tough. Think if we hadn't become harmed in the first place! Thinking loudly here...

Sidetrack: people should become encouraged to raise their voices instead of the opposite!? Even if their language isn't perfect! Their spelling and grammar has flaws. How many voices aren't silenced? How many voices aren't censored that shouldn't have been censored? And are there people screaming loudly and taking up all the space that maybe shouldn't have all this space? Why do they need all this space? Quite ironic.

I know of a girl struggling with everything on her own. Trying to understand, to develop on her own. Afraid of taking too much space, feeling shame and gilt because she did. Whose fault was this actually?

And I was tipped about this open letter to President Barack Obama from Alice Miller and other Children’s Rights Advocates by a person standing very close to me.

Also see the site Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment. There you can read:

The Global Initiative aims to:

• form a strong alliance of human rights agencies, key individuals and non-governmental organisations against corporal punishment;
• make corporal punishment of children visible by building a global map of its prevalence and legality, ensuring that children's views are heard and charting progress towards ending it;
• lobby state governments systematically to ban all forms of corporal punishment and to develop public education programmes;
• provide detailed technical assistance to support states with these reforms.

Also see Important Issues from The Children’s Ombudsman’s site.

About the Convention on the Rights of the Child (barnkonventionen) in Swedish. And in English.

The school and authoritarianism…

From an article that has been laying here for quite a while I thought was so good…

With the heading “Political Agenda corrupts the picture.” An article about school politics in Sweden and our (lousy in my strong opinion and feeling) school minister.

The author of the article writes that 30-40 years ago we had a discussion where one draw attention to the encyclopedic knowledge as one called it, namely the knowledge where you just reeled off facts without understanding connections, relations and processes in the ground (yes, deep or surface knowledge or what it’s called in English?).

One discussed grades (betyg) and saw the risks with rewarding the easily measurable knowledge.

Laboriously (with difficulty) one has walked in another direction in the school here in favour of a deeper understanding of the knowledge matters/subjects.

The students were taught to reflect, to think themselves. Yes, even to question things, state of affairs etc.

Now we are obviously turning back to the superficiality’s paradigm again!

Our school minister’s so called reforms indicates a somewhat childish way of behaving to knowledge and pedagogy. Carrots and whips (carrot and stick discipline) shall become honored again and maybe Björklund also has confused the need of a teacher’s authority with authoritarian teachers.

In the Academic world different researchers of course can have different views on science and knowledge, but they aren’t allowed to misrepresent their sources or slip when they quote.

When Björklund has talked about the alleged bad results in Swedish schools a specific, but not expressed view on knowledge is talking.

Parts of the liberal press agree with Björklund and thinks he identifies the real problems (!!!). But is it possible to identify problems when you distort the facts as the sources in fact point out?

How is the dominant liberal press’ ethics and moral when it thinks that this is an acceptable way of using source materials?

Is it the same sort of moral the Alliance (the current ruling coalition here, and hopefully not lasting) uses, and the press gladly presents as the truth, when it paints Swedish citizens black who are said to cheat Social Insurances in Sweden or say that they are working instead of being home with children that are sick? The alarm report which sketched out a picture of millions of cheating Swedes showed to be erroneous, but this they speak very quietly about!!!

If you can assert that the common welfare system is used by greedy citizens, then it’s easier to wind up.

If you can prove that a school where teachers and students try to live together in a friendly atmosphere gives bad results, that the lack of grades from the first beginning lower the students motivation, yes, then you can shout for earlier grades (betyg), harder grips, authoritarian methods.

A certain political agenda is operating here, a hidden agenda.

4,000 Swedish school kids answered an inquiry about security and wellbeing where the Swedish school reached top results. What sort of view on man does Björklund have when he chooses to overlook exactly those students’ – these young people whom in fact are experts on their own situation? Aren’t they? Does he show respect? And why not?

Of course there are things to criticize in our school, but the political platform has to be given an account of.

For example if one likes a school with military drilling more than one who negotiate (Björklund is a former officer). Quite ironically, yes.

Contradictions and confusions…

Some thoughts on the bike to work, threw those words down quickly on paper when I came to work, before the first student. I write them down here almost as I wrote them down this morning:

Limit setting for children are hotter than ever again, but letting the market totally free is ok, absolutely nothing wrong with or anything to worry about. Children, on the contrary, need restrictions, restrictions for instance the market doesn’t need. How would it be if children didn't get restrictions? Where would it end? Or it's for "their own good" and the world's good? Those children will grow up to good citizens, capable of handling and managing a free market or something?

Liberals are talking about freedom in one circumstance, but discipline in another.

Integrity – what about?

Respect – what about?

True, genuine respect and capacity to that sort of respect…

Freedom for who? And whose freedom?

Confused (and confusing) liberals here at least can’t really point to proofs or explain where they have got things from. Relying on their feelings?? At the same time as they can be depreciating and belittling other peoples’ feelings! And claiming other peoples’ lack of proofs.

Came to think about integrity violations…

You (the people on the bottom and children) need to earn your freedom?? I wonder if all are entitled or worth freedom in a liberal’s world actually if you scratch on the surface?

The same confusing messages many of us got early??

When I was student at a folk high school here in Sweden after quitting the gymnasium we spoke about let-go (låt-gå in Swedish, or laissez-faire), authoritarian and democratic leadership (in teachers in this case I think). More than thirty years ago we were learned that the democratic leadership was the best.

Have some (many) liberals misunderstood what "freedom" is? Confused it with laissez-faire combined with authoritarianism? I wonder quite ironically.

Politics and poisonous pedagogy…

Are there parallels?

“It doesn’t matter! One has to dress (so one doesn’t freeze)!”

That it is chilly indoors, one has to adjust to simply? Chilliness out of no reason, because it isn’t about lack of money that is the cause to the cool temperature...

“It doesn’t matter!”

about being controlled concerning the use of the telephone. Again not because there is lack of money.

For having no needs or demands (at all) you can get a reward? Or prize? A big, “glorious” reward? Storms of applauds? Very upset writing...

Making things wrong is a catastrophe? You can’t get loved unless you aren’t perfect (= conditional love)? Perfect in every single little detail and respect (and therapists in therapy: how do they see those high demands on perfection, very ironically? As a character flaw?)? And noone will ever become… Or rather; they didn’t love because they couldn’t, their lack of love had nothing to do with the child. Their inability to love didn’t come from the child’s character. But this is too painful to realize. It is easier and less painful blaming oneself.

There is a stubborn refusal to take proper care of herself.

A burden of responsibility, and guilt, was put on the child(ren). A heavy burden…

The children couldn’t develop freely; use their energy on their own development. Tied up with invisible ties…

Everything should be perfect: perfectly fixed up, the children neat and cute and well-mannered and modest, the garden later perfect as the yard, the etiquette was important (in a way)… If it hadn’t been perfect (and when it wasn’t, because it was seldom perfect) what then?

Very often (if not always) grading the food she has made: too little (or much) salt, to this and that... Depreciating. So as to be in advance of an (or two) internalized parents??? Proving to them she knows how bad she is?? I wonder how much I have got of this??

My one year younger brother uses to tease and says:

"They weren't enough salted these meatballs, too much pepper..."

He too being in advance of her self-critics, phew!??

Yes, this with the cleverness…. And when you can’t manage being that perfect of whatever reason, not least out of age, what then?

Can that mother truly love or be there? Occupied with other things, herself not least… And of course all this fixing up, being the perfect wife, mother and also lady of the house for people dad could take unexpectedly with him from work (we lived at his work-places).

And what our politicians show is contempt?? Contempt for people, and not (genuine) respect or a wide variety of feelings either… Oh yes, strong feelings, but against and NOT FOR!!

They believe in the poisonous pedagogy: For your own good we need to… They think they need to educate and teach people. Passing the contempt for weakness further they learned very early in life and have kept denied behind many, many locks? Tragic and very damaging (destructive) because there unprocessed things befalls other people! So the effects can be really harmful, yes, even disastrous!

I saw the leaders of the alliance parties yesterday on TV and couldn’t watch further, wanted to vomit at their appearance… And the school minister said something that was filled with malicious pleasure and even enjoyment, delight.

How does one handle this attitude from the politicians, of malicious pleasure, of contempt for people and for weakness and all other similar attitudes? In the most constructive, really efficient way, in the constructive way?

Their attitude probably triggers a wide variety of reactions in people: in some as me disgust, in others it functions as approval of the same contempt and of treating other people, some people badly… In other harmed people this attitude from our politicians causes thunderous applauses, enjoyment and yes, malicious pleasure, but they don’t know why and they don’t care about why?? The pleasure when people get “corrected” and punished and suffer because of the punishment, the more the better, whether they deserve it or not, that doesn’t matter at all?

In others this attitude of contemptuous attitude and entire lack of sensitivity and empathy causes another reaction, which comes as automatically, triggers something, but with another result; rather a strong against-reaction??

Early experiences all these never have gotten help questioning and seeing as wrong, but now afterwards regard as love and for their own good?? We needed to learn?? Measure executed by complete individuals, standing high above us??

But what did we learn?

Our school minister, whose ideas I dislike from deep in my heart, is educated officer, major I think. Some use the expression baton-major… And his ideas are applauded by horribly many! What have he and they experienced? And haven’t child-raising improved more since I was a child???

One can get afraid of the dark for less…

Yes, “the more defended tend to lead”???

After a 30-minutes walk in rain, coming home almost like a drowned cat: How does one teach children respect? Genuine, real respect? And the lack of respect: Where does it come from? Why don’t they show respect? Can it be because of lack of respect? And that they have been treated disrespectfully? Probably from earliest in life?

Is the right measure more of the same? Is punishment the right measure? Or what should we try with, do?

The power can punish without being forced to explain why he is punishing?? Authoritarian, totalitarian!

I will write more about this later… Referring to what Miller writes about poisonous pedagogy and politics…

Addition in the evening: In fact Arthur Silber writes about similar things in his essay “Four More Months of This Crap? Noooo…” And writes great as usual. I have to smile at this title!!! Addition July 3: I have blogged about this essay (translated parts to Swedish) here.

I have to quote:

“…in an article I wrote two and a half years ago, I set out what I consider a significant part of the explanation. (Precisely how these dynamics initially take root and the often complex ways in which they operate require a longer explanation, which is the one I hope to get to in the future.) In ‘The Roots of the Politics of Power,’ I noted Alice Miller's term ‘poisonous pedagogy’ and her explanation of its meaning:

‘Poisonous pedagogy is a phrase I use to refer to the kind of parenting and education aimed at breaking a child's will and making that child into an obedient subject by means of overt or covert coercion, manipulation, and emotional blackmail.

In my books For Your Own Good and Thou Shall Not Be Aware, I have explained the concept using concrete examples. In my other books I have repeatedly stressed how the mendacious mentality behind this approach to dealing with children can leave long-lasting imprints on the way we think and relate to one another in our adult lives.’

In introducing a further excerpt from Miller, I wrote:

The following is from one of her first books, Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. We should note the revealing subtitle: Society's Betrayal of the Child. As Miller once again makes clear, it is our childhood experiences -- and learning to internalize completely the obedience-denial-idealization mechanism -- that explain so much of our adult behavior.

And those earliest experiences and their resulting psychological damage also throw light on the nature of politics and political debate.

Here is Miller:

‘There is a good deal else that would not exist without 'poisonous pedagogy.' It would be inconceivable, for example, for politicians mouthing empty cliches to attain the highest positions of power by democratic means. But since voters, who as children would normally have been capable of seeing through [see the child in 'The Emperors New Clothes'] these cliches with the aid of their feelings, were specifically forbidden to do so in their early years, they lose this ability as adults. The capacity to experience the strong feelings of childhood and puberty (which are so often stifled by child-rearing methods, beatings, or even drugs) could provide the individual with an important means of orientation with which he or she could easily determine whether politicians are speaking from genuine experience or are merely parroting time-worn platitudes for the sake of manipulating voters. Our whole system of raising and educating children provides the power-hungry with a ready-made railway network they can use to reach the destination of their choice. They need only push the buttons that parents and educators have already installed.’”

We live in a political world...

Människorna är grymma mitt barn
och storhetsvansinniga
hela mänskligheten är storhetsvansinnig
vart vi än ser
ser vi storhetsvansinnig mänsklighet
vi är mitt
i en katastrofal fördumningsprocess
(Thomas Bernhard, his official home-site)

my amateur-translation:
The human beings are cruel my child
and megalomaniac
the whole of mankind is megalomaniac
wherever we see
we see megalomaniac mankind
we are in the middle
of a catastrophic dulling-of-the-intellect-process [so true!!! Does the power think people are stupid?? Arrogantly acting over our heads?]
---
We live in a political world
Love don’t have any place
We’re living in times where men commit crimes
And crime don’t have a face
We live in a political world
Where courage is a thing of the past
Houses are haunted, children are unwanted
The next day could be your last
(Bob Dylan)

I have had a book (among many!) lying here and started to read it yesterday. It’s by the Swedish author Bodil Malmsten (living in France since six years). Her blog (in Swedish) here. I used to be fonder of her earlier. Laughed a lot when I read her former book three years ago. She is in denial about the severity of childhood experiences I think. But that’s another question, and another posting?

Anyway, I want to quote her.

She reacted a lot against Nicolas Sarkozy who said fall 2005 during the revolts in France that if certain immigrants don’t like France there is no reason for them to stay!!! Something that became a law spring 2006 as she writes!

She writes that if a foreigner is judged for rebellious behaviour – rebellion - the one in question looses his/her long-term residence permission (uppehållstillstånd) and is given – if the person is lucky – a temporary residence permission which has to be reconsidered (omprövat) yearly (årligen)!

The same destiny befalls those immigrants who don’t show due (tillbörlig) respect (!!!) for the French flag and national-hymn!!

How is this possible? How come this is opportune today?? How can one say such things? Why don’t people react? And react MUCH MORE? And much louder!

Malmsten says she is stricken by how invisible Sarkozy succeeded being then (before he was elected president 2007), especially when things were burning, then he managed to look as if he didn’t belong to the unpopular government! But usually, or in all other occasions he succeeded in being nearest all cameras and microphones she writes (quite ironical, and yes, she watches French TV-news? So she must see more than we do)!!!

A radio-reporter Anne Sinclair with a lot of routine makes comparisons between today’s demonstrations and the demonstrations 1968. 1968 the youth demonstrated with a hope for the future. The students rebelled against the old, reactionary and hardened (förstockade), while the youth of today rebels of fear for their future. Doesn’t sound good!! This is horrible I think.

I will quote more when I come back from work later today. Really want to write more about this.

After work, continuation (sidetrack: maybe I could learn something from her: namely writing much more briefly!? Or?):

She writes more about the demonstrations in France: The school-minister (Sarkozy then?He was both minister of interior and for the education 2005-2007?) in France was forced to say that the government was open for dialogue about CPE (contrat première embauche or First Employment Contract), the minister said it was still time for dialogue (!!!).

“That’s what’s so good with murmurs of discontent (missnöjesyttringar) as yesterday’s demonstrations.

For if all these students, employees, people connected with the trade-unions and people not connected with them, younger and older who demonstrated in Paris yesterday, had stayed at home and got out burnt each one of them, then the government hadn’t become forced to take the time for dialogue as is necessary in a democracy, before the changes which affects a whole people are carried through .”

She writes about her sister’s cat lying at a hospital in Stockholm with drop. So what? The Avian flu is ravaging in the world just now (written a couple of years ago?). In this devastated world with its starvation, its epidemics, its increasing gaps between poor and rich. Its wars, its middle-east, its Rwanda, its Darfour.

One chapter has the title “Why are you so angry, Bodil Malmsten?”

And she answers for instance (my a little free translation and interpretation):

“Why I am angry?

I am not angry.

I am exhilarated and grateful for living in a world more complicated than I myself am./…/

I fear all groups more than everything else and all sorts of grouping.

I am against the family as a power factor but for the individuals in it; I love my family – the whole humanity – but I have difficulties with a lot of people.

But not all, not all the time, not at all.

I love all respecting the security-distance /…/

I hate hierarchies.

A woman at the top or not – it’s the power structure I am against. /…/

I am against Nicolas Sarkozy /…/ and everything he stands for – harder grips and bang! at the weaker.”

PS. In the evening: it stands that Sarkozy's father was immigrant from Hungary and his mother has Greek ancestors; from the aristocracy ("hypocrisy"??) in both cases!!! And the radio-reporter Anne Sinclair is daughter of a rich industry-man, but she seems to stand on the "weak's" side despite HER background!! She is 7 years older than Sarkozy? Her grandfather owned art-galleries (if I understood the French right?? :-) It's 35 years since I read French).

We live in a political world

We live in a political world,
Love don't have any place.
We're living in times where men commit crimes
And crime don't have a face

We live in a political world,
Icicles hanging down,
Wedding bells ring and angels sing,
clouds cover up the ground.

We live in a political world,
Wisdom is thrown into jail,
It rots in a cell, is misguided as hell
Leaving no one to pick up a trail.

We live in a political world
Where mercy walks the plank,
Life is in mirrors, death disappears
Up the steps into the nearest bank.

We live in a political world
Where courage is a thing of the past
Houses are haunted, children are unwanted
The next day could be your last.

We live in a political world.
The one we can see and can feel
But there's no one to check, it's all a stacked deck,
We all know for sure that it's real.

We live in a political world
In the cities of lonesome fear,
Little by little you turn in the middle
But you're never why you're here.

We live in a political world
Under the microscope,
You can travel anywhere and hang yourself there
You always got more than enough rope.

We live in a political world
Turning and a'thrashing about,
As soon as you're awake, you're trained to take
What looks like the easy way out.

We live in a political world
Where peace is not welcome at all,
It's turned away from the door to wander some more
Or put up against the wall.

We live in a political world
Everything is hers or his,
Climb into the frame and shout God's name
But you're never sure what it is.