{"id":13634,"date":"2026-04-18T20:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T18:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/?p=13634"},"modified":"2026-04-18T22:49:48","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T20:49:48","slug":"kronika-god-moral-och-andlig-renhet-del-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/kronika-god-moral-och-andlig-renhet-del-1\/","title":{"rendered":"CHRONICLE: Good Morals and Spiritual Purity - Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"
This is a column. The writer is responsible for the opinions expressed in the text, not Freedom News.\nWe allow all opinions to be expressed, even if they are uncomfortable. We stand for real freedom of expression.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Under the main heading \u201dGood Morals and Spiritual Purity\u201d I plan to write a number of articles on language, politics, science, morality and spirituality to contribute to the understanding of the world religions and the rulers of our time. Such an insight could become part of the moral and spiritual liberation of the West, which more and more people are beginning to realize is urgently needed. <\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
This first article, subtitled \u201dSemantics and linguistic honesty\u201d, is about language and the basic prerequisites for dialog, factual discussions and scholarship.<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Semantics means the study of the meaning and significance of words and phrases. Many linguists and linguists have an open-minded attitude towards the reasonable use of words and expressions. At the other end of the spectrum are the so-called language police, who are characterized by very strong opinions that certain ways of using words and language are wrong. Unfortunately for those who seek unambiguous rules about what is linguistically correct, the existence of such linguistic unambiguity is often lacking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question of what came first linguistically, the phenomenon or the word\/phrase describing it, can be thought-provoking. In practice, it is often difficult or impossible to answer. What we do know is that language changes as reality does. Technological innovations that lead to the development of new equipment and products require both new words and other linguistic developments. Examples: the art of printing, the telephone, the car and the computer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Influence and power<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Another area that has historically been and continues to be influenced by language is the quest for influence and power. Such aspirations are not least found in the fields of politics and religion, with those in power more or less consciously trying to influence language to consolidate and expand their power. The reason it can work is that we humans are greatly influenced emotionally and opinionally by how phenomena are described in language, which in turn has to do with psychology and associations. A large number of stories throughout history, historiographies of historical events, and themes in literature and film are based on this premise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People who take part in political discussions and debates of various kinds often have a different starting point than the discussion or debate itself might suggest. Rather than a desire to discuss or debate with the discussion partner, the aim may be to influence listeners to believe that the discussion partner is a bad person. The advantage of making listeners believe that the discussion partner is a bad person is that it shifts the focus from the issue at hand to the people being discussed. Example: reference to a politically correct set of values. Anyone who says in a debate \u201dI don't share your values\u201d is probably doing so more or less deliberately to achieve three goals:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • Implicitly emphasizing one's own goodness and moral excellence <\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Portraying your opponent as a bad person<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • Shifting the focus from the issue at hand to criticizing the discussion partner, who, as a bad person, thus also becomes reasonable to associate with reprehensible perceptions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
    My morals are better than yours<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    Another aspect of the expression \u201dI don't share your values\u201d is that it can be considered anti-scientific in the sense that it shifts the focus from the factual issue to a not very well hidden opinion, which to the insightful may appear as ridiculous rubbish. If we look at what the self-defined good guys may seem to want to say with the expression, the meaning is different than they themselves may even be aware of, such as the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    \u201dI have good morals and honorable opinions but you have bad morals and reprehensible opinions. Therefore, I am right and you are wrong, which should not be examined on the merits because a person as bad as you should not be allowed to speak. In this way, we can preserve freedom of expression and consolidate the equal value of all.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    With such formulations, those in power would hopefully not have much propaganda success with their contradictory smears and censorship, but embedded in psychologically manipulative emotional slogans, the abuses have proved to be able to be implemented and work frighteningly well. To what extent this is the case due to a millennial spiritual decay and an intellectual meltdown in the face of the traditional right of power through alien cultural heritage - and the most extreme cult of personality in world history! - it is difficult and in practice possibly impossible to know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Call sabotage and change of focus<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    The term \u201dconversational sabotage\u201d can be used to describe what happens when one or more participants in a discussion leave the subject matter or pay less attention to it in favor of personal attacks and a change of focus. On the internet, the terms \u201dtroll\u201d and \u201dtrolling\u201d are sometimes used in this context. Changing focus is unfortunately not an easy phenomenon to manage, as complex issues by definition tend to involve both tangential and overlapping ones. Nonetheless, it can often be obvious that changes of focus can be attempts at pure conversational sabotage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Objectively unfounded shifts of focus and other forms of more or less obvious conversational sabotage are examples of pure anti-science! True scientificity typically involves a quest for knowledge acquisition of some kind. Certainly, knowledge can be difficult to assess and not always as clearly interpretable as would be needed for consensus, but despite this, all knowledge acquisition should be hampered or prevented by inappropriate changes of focus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Censorship of research data<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    Here we are touching on the essence of what can be called true science. Scientific research, in the sense of seeking knowledge, cannot and must not include censorship of research data in order to influence future conclusions in a pre-determined direction! However, it is easy to understand that there may be incentives for industry players, politicians and religious preachers to act anti-scientifically in the pursuit of money, power and influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Example: 
    Those in power who want a historical event to be described in a specific way act and create the conditions for censoring, falsifying or ridiculing any evidence that might suggest that the event should be described differently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    One area where this problem is easy to understand is the historiography of war. It is certainly considered politically correct to put forward the view that it is the victors who write history. At the same time, the consequence of this is that alternative histories are not always given a reasonable opportunity to be expressed and disseminated. The decisive factor is usually whether there are power-political advantages for someone in emphasizing a certain view of history over another. In this respect, the media have a responsibility that they often fail to fulfill, which has probably contributed to the emergence of new free media that have gained increasing attention and success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    The unholy alliance of power players<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    A general specious argument against the existence of conspiracies is that it would be so difficult to organize them that they would be virtually unfeasible in practice. However, the fact that this may be the case in some instances is hardly proof that all conspiracy theories are necessarily wrong. From a scientific perspective, the interesting thing about conspiracy theories is not that they are conspiracy theories but whether they are true or false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    In our time, those in power and their supporters sometimes use the term conspiracy theorist as a derogatory epithet for people with undesirable views. Other derogatory words and expressions used by some to avoid discussing issues include right-wing extremist, Islamophobe, homophobe, right-wing extremist, male chauvinist, climate denier and racist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Not discussing the substance<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    When these and other expressions are used to belittle and denigrate someone, what they all have in common is a desire not to discuss the substance of the matter and not to allow different arguments to be pitted against each other in order to reach a well-founded conclusion. Instead, it is about winning discussions with dishonest incivility combined with good-natured self-aggrandizement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    The other side of this coin is a more or less unfounded glorification of phenomena, political doctrines, political leaders, religions, prophets and religious preachers of various kinds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Group membership difficult to give up<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
    Thus, it seems natural for us humans to want to both reject and celebrate various phenomena as a usually quite unconscious and probably also genetically based striving for group affiliation. It is easy to imagine that evolutionarily we have had more to gain than to lose from many instances of group solidarity, not least genetic ones where family and kin matter. In our modern age, with an increasingly global culture and a small but extremely influential power elite - which operates largely in secret - it would be desirable if more people could, wanted and dared to question the cultural, political and religious conditions for social interaction of our time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Based on such questioning, hopefully a good moral and spiritual purity could emerge on the historical ground for the future and potential eternity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Writer: Gustav Berg<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Originally published on 2022-08-16<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
    About language and the basic conditions for dialog, factual discussions and science.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":168631,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[214,211],"tags":[437],"class_list":["post-13634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-kronika","category-opinion","tag-moral-och-heder"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13634","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13634\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/168631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frihetsnytt.se\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}