“Prepare for War”
Is a 19th century mindset finally being challenged?
When the jab rollout was in full swing in 2021, the ruling elite noted with annoyance that a small but significant minority of the population was skeptical about taking the prophylactic drug for various reasons, for example that they already had a robust natural immunity.
In France, president Emmanuel Macron bombastically stated that those who refused to roll up their sleeves ”weren’t proper French citizens” and should be banned from public places. In Canada, prime minister Justin Trudeau made the jaw-dropping claim that the people who protested against the jab mandate were ”misogynist and racist extremist” and ordered that their bank accounts be frozen (his invocation of the Canadian emergencies act was recently rebuked in court).
At the time, I was sitting up here in Sweden and thought to myself I was lucky to be in one of the few places where people of power didn’t resort to those kinds of violations of democratic and human rights.
Fast forward to a national defense conference a few weeks ago. First, the commander in chief of this country implored every Swede to ”prepare for war”. Shortly thereafter, the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, held a speech where he made clear that Swedish citizenship is about ”being prepared to die with a weapon in hand to defend our country and our values”. ”It is not a travel document.”
If I had been more engaged and involved in the political discussion, I think I would have been a bit shocked by what he said. Political rhetoric can’t really shock me anymore. It takes place in a very particular space that is, let’s say, somewhat detached from the actual reality of human life. But I still think this statement from the head of government of a Western democracy merits a reflection or two. These people are after all supposed to represent millions of human beings.
One immediate reflection is that there is a lawful right in this country to opt out of military service. I did civil service myself in my early 20s as an alternative to weapons training. Does this mean that I am not a proper citizen in the prime minister’s view?
Authentic global change is the sum of authentic individual change
I chose civil service because I didn’t believe in war as a solution to anything, and I wanted to make my own personal contribution to creating a world where people never have to make that kind of choice. May sound pretentious, but I still think collective change begins with individual change. Authentic global change is the sum of authentic individual change.
And what are ”Swedish values”, anyway? The head of government didn’t talk about ”human rights” or ”democratic values”, or ”love”, for that matter, which would have made sense. He highlighted ”our values”. Meaning what? Are those values the same today as in 1950? Are they the same for me as they are for my neighbor across the street? I have no idea.
Here is my point: In a sense, I am not a citizen in precisely the same ”nation” as Kristersson, other than formally. To put it in somewhat new age-like terms, he is not on my timeline.
Citizenship is not a travel document, said the PM. I suspect he was invoking that collectivist 19th century idea, that mental construct we have since then been conditioned to embrace as something as just real as the food we eat and the air we breathe.
In my personal view, citizenship is basically the right to pay taxes and, by virtue of that, benefit from certain allowances and subsidies the government administers. In short, the right to be a part of the general redistribution of the energy we call money. Other than that it is pretty much a travel document to me — a document I by the way hope we will be able to scrap at some point. (I am well aware that many think otherwise.)
We all belong to different nonlocal ”nations”
I consider myself to be a citizen of a ”nation” of like minded people who live all over the world. I meet and stay in contact with people in the Americas, in Africa, in southern Asia and in numerous places across Europe, the continent I have lived in almost all my life (and which admittedly feels a bit more familiar to me than the others).
We all belong to different nonlocal ”nations”. In this country, in any country, quite a few people are genuinely scared of high immigration and appalled at the crime rate (almost regardless of the numbers). Some are afraid of an invasion from a nearby superpower. Others are scared of the tyranny of capitalism, of being abused by the big corporations, and they want to be protected by a strong government. Some are conservative and resent modern ideas about loosely organized families and vague gender identities. Others feel the latter is the way to go and resent conservative back-pedalers.
You see? We all have different spiritual, psychological and mental informal ”nationalities”. The formal citizenship is a travel document and a membership in a club that redistributes money.
I won’t deny that there are some so-called nation states with sort of a coherent idea of what it is to be a citizen of that particular state. There are not very many, but they exist, like Denmark and Japan, but not Belgium or Nigeria.
I think global integration is putting people to the test also in those more homogeneous states, and this may exacerbate polarization. When conservative people feel something they have always taken for granted is threatened, they double down on national sentiments.
Only 17 percent say they would be prepared to pick up a weapon to defend their country
Is some part of the intensified schisms we are experiencing perhaps a sign that those 19th century ideas are finally challenged?
The will to die for one’s country is weak in Western Europe. In Germany, only 17 percent of people say they would definitely be prepared to pick up a weapon to defend their country, whereas 61 percent say they would not. The willingness to take up arms is even lower in the Netherlands, and the figures are not much higher in countries like Spain, Austria and the UK.
Are we seeing expressions of desperation from the rulers? Do they feel they have to make more drastic statements, like in the quotes above, because they frustratingly think: ”Why aren’t people listening? Why won’t they take heed anymore? How can we get them to fall in line again?”
If I am obliged to risk my life to defend the artificial construct that is the nation state I live in, I am also obliged to kill human beings that happen to live in another, similarly artificial construct, where they, too, are obliged to fight to death for their ”nation” and their ”values”. What if some of those people belong to my borderless nation of like minded people? Why would I kill them? Why would I kill anybody? Why would anybody kill anybody?
What if the Swedish PM had instead encouraged citizens to ”prepare for peace”?
First and foremost, we are citizens of humankind. We are also citizens of Gaia — or integral parts of her, rather.
“Only the inspired should make decisions that affect the lives of many”
Let me conclude with a few lines from a poem that may have been written either by Khalil Gibran or Teresa of Avila, or neither (I have consulted the latest AI tech to find out, but no conclusive answer). In any case, the words ring true:
Most men of power have not the strength or wisdom to be satisfied with the way things are.
Only the inspired should make decisions that affect the lives of many, never a man who has not held God in his arms and become the servant of unity.
***
If you like this text, please check out my other essays on Medium
I have a podcast and a Youtube channel called Mind the Shift
I also have a website
