Public art at any cost?

 I am very interested in art. I have a lot of art at home, attend exhibitions, and have served as the chairperson of a large art association. I know that art moves people—and so it should, especially public art.

However, I strongly feel that public art funded by taxpayers deserves more careful consideration than it has received.

Quite some time ago, a pine tree from northern Sweden—said to be the oldest pine in the world at 10,000 years of age—was cloned.

This clone was placed in a special container outside the large hospital in our city.

The clone did not survive, so the process had to be repeated—at a cost of approximately $800,000.

Another work of art has now been purchased—a piece intended to serve as a reminder of anti-racism and why it is so important. Racism is abhorrent and must be fought, but what does this stone say about racism? (See the photo.) The cost? $280,000.

My questions are: Do we have that kind of money? And if so, when will there be a monument addressing the widespread antisemitism in Sweden?

Red lines in politics?

 There is a political party in Sweden right now that effectively holds the deciding vote. It is up to them to determine which of the two blocs will govern Sweden.

The party is the Centre Party—a traditional agrarian party that has always belonged to the conservative side of the political spectrum.

This changed a few years ago when the conservative side began seeking to cooperate with a relatively new party, the Sweden Democrats. Most people viewed this party as nationalist and xenophobic; for the Centre Party, however, it was a step too far, and they chose instead to cooperate with the Left.

I am not here to defend the Sweden Democrats, nor do I sympathise with them, but for a great many Swedes, the whole thing feels like a massive overreaction by the Left.

A coalition of various right-wing parties, including the Sweden Democrats, has now governed Sweden for four years, and things have gone well.

However, the Centre Party absolutely does not want to cooperate with the Sweden Democrats—or, for that matter, with the far left.

So what is to be done? Why this red line!

The Centre Party considers the Sweden Democrats too extreme—not a party like any other—and while it is true that over the years they have put forward controversial proposals and had odd individuals in their ranks, a good deal of what they have advocated is now shared by the majority.

An extremist party? What about the Centre Party, then?

If you go back to the 1930s, many in that party sympathised with the Nazis—though, admittedly, that is history. However, in modern times, the Centre Party has put forward various strange proposals, such as:

Polygamy: The proposal to allow marriage between more than two people. It wasn't just a large number of people; some even spoke about bestiality.

The then Minister for Agriculture, Eskil Erlandsson (C), debated against the Social Democrats, who were calling for a total ban on bestiality. Erlandsson argued that a total ban would create difficult legal issues regarding where to draw the line.

The controversial quote: To illustrate the difficulties involved in new legislation, Erlandsson asked from the podium: "Should it be permissible to caress a female dog’s teats out of affection, or should that count as sexual use of an animal?"

Open immigration: Completely abolishing regulated borders and allowing free immigration to Sweden.

Abolishing compulsory school attendance: Replacing compulsory school attendance with a "compulsory education requirement," which in practice would make attending school voluntary, provided the knowledge requirements were met.

So, who is the one being extreme?

And is it possible to cooperate with the far-left—which, just a month ago, expelled over 30 people who are openly antisemitic and romanticise terrorism? Please pray for Sweden.

Healthcare for all! State or church?

 Health Care for all, is it politics or the church that pulled this off?

Some argue that it was the church that established healthcare institutions and that politics made it possible for everyone to receive care; while there is truth to some of these claims, there are things that politicians overlook.

The word hospital comes from the Latin *hospitium*—a shelter for strangers. And that is exactly what it was.

From the 4th century onwards, it was the Christian church that built the first healthcare system in Europe.

The idea that every human being has inherent worth and deserves care—including the poor, strangers, and the incurably ill—stems directly from Christian theology. In the Roman Empire, by contrast, medical care was something one purchased privately.

Monasteries served as hospitals. The Rule of St. Benedict, dating back to the 6th century, stipulated that the care of the sick was to take precedence over all else. Monastic hospices existed in every major city.

The first true hospitals in Europe were built by the Church—such as Basil’s hospital in Caesarea (369), the Hôtel-Dieu in Paris (651), and Santo Spirito in Rome (1204).

The situation was the same in Sweden. Until the Reformation, the Church operated almost all *Helgeandshus* (houses of the Holy Spirit) and leper hospitals. After the reign of Gustav Vasa, the state took over many of these institutions, yet their operation often remained rooted in the Church.

In ancient times, you received medical care if you could afford a private physician. Monasteries turned this around.

The Rule of Saint Benedict, dating from the 6th century—which almost all monasteries in Europe followed—states quite plainly:

"Care of the sick must be placed before and above all else. They are to be served as if they were Christ himself."

So, in other words, both right and wrong—though politicians and people who aren't particularly fond of the church don't seem to really want to understand.

Monasteries were the first to provide systematic healthcare to the poor, and they did so for a thousand years before a state existed that was capable of doing it.

Did political reforms launch schooling for all—true or false?

 A while back, I had some discussions with colleagues about the welfare state and related matters. They, like many others, believe that most things in the Western world have come about through political reforms or humanism.

It is certainly not entirely wrong that some changes came about that way, but the idea that everything originated in that manner is false.

I don’t know how things are in your countries, but this is the situation in Sweden, so let me explain.

Did political reforms launch schooling for all—true or false?

The very first schools, such as the cathedral schools (for example, Katedralskolan in Lund, dating back to 1085), were built and run entirely by the church. However, these were not for everyone; they were open only to boys who were to be trained as priests.

Through the Church Law of 1686, the church required the population to learn how to read in order to understand the Word of God . These were not schools in the modern sense; instead, instruction took place in the home and was monitored by the clergy during household examinations. As a result, Swedes were largely literate long before schooling became compulsory.

This was recorded in the church registers, and because of this, it is quite easy to find one's relatives when researching family history.

By far the most significant step toward a school system "for all" was taken with the Elementary School Act of 1842. The law mandated that there be at least one school in every parish. Since there were no modern municipal bodies at the time, the entire practical and financial responsibility fell upon the church and the local parish assembly.

The rector (parish priest) became the ex officio chairman of the school board.

The parishes built schoolhouses, hired trained teachers, and ensured that all children—regardless of background—received instruction.

The 1842 reform of the public elementary school system was driven primarily by liberal politicians, social commentators, and a growing middle class.

The Church retained formal responsibility for the public elementary school system until 1930, when its administration was fully transferred to the civil municipalities.

The church played a decisive and absolutely essential role in the elementary school reform.

Without the church's unique position in Swedish society in the 1840s, the elementary school reform of 1842 would have been practically impossible to implement.

More to come!

Can it be? Election fraud!?

 "Election fraud" can encompass a wide range of things; it isn't a term I consider common in Sweden, but unfortunately, it is gaining ground and could become an unpleasant reality now and in the future.

In Sweden, when you vote for a political party, you can mark a specific candidate you want to see enter Parliament. I never mark a candidate when I vote, but some people do.

In a small town in northern Sweden, a far-left individual has secured a seat in Parliament thanks to preferential votes. This person has been a party member for less than a year, is virtually unknown to the party, and is a complete political novice.

It’s perfectly fine if the people want him—a young guy with roots in Somalia—but the fact is that things apparently weren't done properly.

It appears that he distributed ballot papers with his name already marked, and some witnesses claim that he also handed out cash in connection with this.

This is, of course, not permitted, and the police are currently looking into the matter.

However, it has also come to light that he has significant debts and has been living with a friend who is deeply involved in serious crime and criminal gangs.

It is also said that he recently had travelled to Somalia, spend some time there, met with government official and talked about the election in Sweden. Fishy?

During the search of their apartment last year, small amounts of cocaine were found, as well as paraphernalia used for drug dealing. It is once again abundantly clear that the far-left has no control over who is in the party.

This was yesterday.

Today they have found another Somali man, who has managed to get elected via preferential votes for the far-left party. This man has a documented criminal record; the police acknowledge this.

The police had reportedly been monitoring these individuals, having observed them withdrawing cash, driving people from vulnerable areas to polling stations, and distributing pre-marked ballots.

Before the election, this far-left party had major problems with antisemitism and elected representatives who praised terrorists. They had expelled 33 members and thought things couldn't get any worse—but it turned out it could.

But it is not just in this city that there have been problems. In a city in southern Sweden, 126 votes were overlooked and are now invalid. The number is likely too small to affect the parliamentary election, but given the city's small size, it could influence the local election. Regardless, it is a scandal.

As a colleague of mine at work said: what a banana republic Sweden is!

Please pray for Sweden and for what is to come, and we shall see what happens in the days ahead.

Why so long time?

 One might wonder why it took so long for Christian Europe to strike back against Islam.

In 637 there was no Pope with an army, no France, no England, no Germany as we know them.

The West was fragmented into small Germanic kingdoms. The Franks under Charles Martel and Charlemagne were busy fighting to survive against Muslims in Spain / southern France and against pagans in Saxony.

The Frankish Carolingian Empire split up in 843 and then collapsed into Viking, Magyar, and Muslim raids for another century. From 900-1050, Western Europe was on defence everywhere.

There was no logistical ability to move an army 3,000 km to Jerusalem, feed it, and sustain it. Armies were small, seasonal, feudal levies.

I read in one book that western sources from the 8th-10th centuries describe pilgrimages to Jerusalem without major interference. As long as pilgrims could go, there was no popular pressure in Europe to "liberate" the city. Jerusalem was important theologically, but it was not under a perception of acute desecration.

But as I wrote in another blogpost, things changed dramatically.

At the Council of Clermont in November 1095, Urban II turned Alexios's request for military aid into a pilgrimage armed with the promise of remission of sins - to free the Eastern churches and liberate the Holy Sepulchre. That ideological framework - crusade as armed pilgrimage - had never existed before 1095. Without it, a European army marching to Jerusalem was unthinkable.

So it wasn't a 458-year wait. It was 400 years of impossibility, followed by about 20-25 years after Manzikert when a new Turkish threat made the old arrangement collapse and a new Western political-religious structure made a response possible.

Knight Templar, who were they and not?

 In my last blog post I wrote down the history of Jerusalem, crusades and the knights templar.

Im not an historian, but I am very much interested in history. I have read many books about this and I also have a son who is very much interested in this and have a huge knowledge

There might be some mistakes in my writing, some error of facts, but on the whole, this should be true.

I really recommend you to read about it from sources out there. It is really fascinating since I believe we have been told lies about these knights.

So first

Who they were NOT

Not guardians of the Holy Grail, Ark of the Covenant, or secret bloodline of Jesus.

There is zero contemporary evidence for this. That legend was invented by later medieval romance,  around 1210, and exploded with modern novels like The Da Vinci Code.

Not the Freemasons.

Freemasonry emerges in the late 1500s-early 1700s from stonemason guilds in Britain. The Templars were dissolved 400 years earlier. Masons adopted Templar imagery in the 18th century for symbolic reasons, but there is no organisational continuity.

Not secret occultists worshipping Baphomet.

The charge of worshipping an idol called Baphomet, spitting on the cross, and homosexual rites was the standard list of heresy accusations Philip IV's ministers used against anyone they wanted to destroy. 

No Templar rulebook, letter, or non-torture confession mentions it. The name "Baphomet" is likely a corruption of "Mahomet" — used to claim they had converted to Islam.

 Not immensely wealthy as individuals.

The individual knight took a vow of absolute poverty. The Order was wealthy, but like a modern nonprofit, the wealth was institutional. Knights owned nothing.

 Not a secret society that survived underground.

There was no secret fleet that sailed to Scotland or America with the Templar treasure. Some knights escaped to other orders, especially in Portugal where they became the Order of Christ, and in Spain. The Order as a military force was done. 

Not celibate monks who only prayed.

They were monks, but of a new kind. The original idea — monk + knight — was scandalous at the time. The Church had long said killing was incompatible with monastic life. The Templars argued killing for Christ was not homicide but malicide — killing evil.

So why good did they you might ask?

Before the Templars, traveling to Jerusalem was extremely dangerous. Bandits and raiding parties controlled the roads. The Templars created a protected network of fortified way-stations, castles, and escorts from Europe to the Holy Land. That system is why large-scale Christian pilgrimage became feasible in the 12th and 13th centuries.

They invented a modern form of banking.

A pilgrim could deposit money at a Templar house in London or Paris and withdraw the value in Acre or Jerusalem with a coded letter. No need to carry gold across hostile territory.

They managed treasuries for kings, nobles and even popes. At one point the French royal treasury was run out of the Paris Temple.

They developed ledgers, deposits, interest-like arrangements, and audits that became the model for European banking.

As a religious order under the Rule of St. Bernard, they had three obligations: to fight, to pray, and to give alms. Each Templar preceptor was required to feed the poor. 

The rule said:

When the poor come to the Templar house, they should be given bread and not turned away.

They also maintained hospitals and alms-houses alongside their military houses, and often left bequests of food and clothing in their wills.

The Templars were among the few groups moving constantly between European, Byzantine and Islamic worlds. They translated and carried medical, architectural, and agricultural knowledge, and their houses served as secure archives for deeds, charters and treaties. Because they were answerable only to the Pope, not to local kings, their houses were considered neutral ground for negotiations.

Their Rule - 686 rules covering everything from prayer to how to wear your mantle - created one of the first truly international, disciplined, merit-based organizations in medieval Europe. You joined as an individual, not as a family, you took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and promotion was based on service, not birth. 

That model influenced later military and monastic orders, including the Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights.

They were not saints by modern standards - they were a military order that fought brutal wars - but for their time they were seen as a combination of special forces, bankers, builders, and monks. 

When they were arrested and dissolved on Friday the 13th, 1307-1312 by King Philip IV of France, largely for political and financial reasons, Europe lost its first international financial and security network.

The Knights Templar. What do we know!?

 Much has been said about the Knights Templar and the holy wars. The crusades.

Much of what you hear from the people around you isn't really true in many cases.

So, I thought I’d write down my understanding of what it was all about.

I have read books by many different authors—Swedish, English, American, and French. They agree on much , though there are some differences—but that is only to be expected among historians.

And I have to say, I'm not an expert, I'm not an historian, so just as you know.

I don’t know if you were like me when we were kids, but we often played war. We played cowboys and Indians. I was usually an Indian.

But we also played knights—especially Knights Templar. I had a sword and a helmet. As I recall, it was a lot of fun.

Long before the Crusades, the Rashidun Caliphate took Jerusalem from the Byzantine Empire after a six-month siege. Caliph Umar traveled to the city in person to accept its peaceful surrender from the Christian Patriarch Sophronius. This was around 637-639 AD

For the vast majority of the 462-year period between 637 and 1099,

life for Christians in Jerusalem was generally stable and peaceful, but it was marked by periods of severe, violent persecution in the 11th century.

As "People of the Book," Christians were classified as dhimmis (protected citizens). They were exempted from military service and granted freedom of worship and property rights. In exchange for this protection and autonomy, Christians had to pay a special poll tax known as the jizya

It was a lot of money. If you could not pay, well you were killed.

For the ones who could pay, it was ok, but things changed.

In 1009 the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah abandoned tolerance. He launched a brutal campaign against religious minorities and ordered the complete destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This sent shockwaves through Europe and planted the early ideological seeds for the Crusades.

Al-Hakim did not spare the Jewish community. Alongside his destruction of churches, he ordered the destruction of synagogues, forced many Jews to wear heavy wooden blocks around their necks to distinguish them from Muslims, and pressured many into forced conversions before reversing his policies later in his reign.

Europe could not just sit and wait.

The first so called crusade took place 1096-1099

So almost 460 years after the Muslim takeover of Jerusalem and the Holy land.

1095: Pope Urban II calls for it at the Council of Clermont in France — Deus vult — to help the Byzantine Empire and retake Jerusalem.

1096: The unofficial People's Crusade leaves first and gets slaughtered in Anatolia.

1096-1099: The main Princes' Crusade — armies led by Godfrey of Bouillon, Raymond of Toulouse, Bohemond of Taranto etc. — marches through Constantinople, takes Antioch in 1098 after an 8-month siege, then moves south.

July 15, 1099: They take Jerusalem from the Fatimid Caliphate.

That conquest is what creates the situation that makes the Templars necessary 20 years later. The Crusaders now control Jerusalem, but they only control the cities

Sad to say these warriors were no angels. Back in those days prisoners were not taken. Many were killed.

When these Crusaders breached the defences on July 15, 1099, they carried out a massive slaughter. The bulk of Jerusalem's Jewish population retreated to their chief synagogue for safety. The Crusaders surrounded the building, barricaded the exits, and burned the synagogue to the ground, killing everyone inside.

Still no Knights templar!

This came later.

The Knights Templar were founded in 1119-1120 in Jerusalem, just after the First Crusade.

A small group of knights led by Hugues de Payens and Godfrey de Saint-Omer approached King Baldwin II of Jerusalem. 

Why?

The roads to the Holy Land were full of pilgrims being robbed and killed, and they offered to form a military monastic order to protect them.

At first there were only 9 knights. They were officially endorsed by the Church at the Council of Troyes in 1129, after being championed by Bernard of Clairvaux, and then grew into the most powerful military order in Christendom.

The name we use, Knights Templar, is a nickname. Their full name was:

Pauperes Commilitones Christi Templique Salomonici

In English: The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon

Why that name one might wonder?

Pauperes / Poor: Like monks, they took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. The early seal of the order shows two knights riding a single horse, a famous image of their poverty and brotherhood. They were not supposed to own anything personally.

Templique Salomonici / of the Temple of Solomon: King Baldwin II gave them quarters in the captured Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Crusaders believed the mosque was built on top of the ruins of the original Temple of Solomon. Because they were headquartered in the Templum, they became known as the knights of the Temple.

So: Poor, because they were monk-knights, Fellow-Soldiers of Christ, because they fought for the Church, and of the Temple of Solomon, because that is literally where they lived.

These knights at their core were only a few hundred knights at any one time. They wore the white mantle with the red cross. Beneath them were sergeants, squires, chaplains, and servants — maybe 2,000-3,000 men total in the East. They were famous for never retreating unless outnumbered 3-to-1 and for never ransoming a brother.

They fought in almost every major battle of the Crusades — Hattin in 1187, Acre, etc. — and built a chain of massive castles like Krak des Chevaliers and Safita.

In my next blog post I will explain who they were, who they were not and what they did, not only fighting.