Sunday, April 18, 2010

When you like and vote for big Government

The sixth extinction - resurrection

Billions of years of life on this planet have gone through several devastating disasters. Scientists have figured out that mass-extinctions have occurred five times before. Each earth-shattering event has destroyed a ¼ or more of all the beings living here.

The question isn’t IF it will happen again, the question is when.

Or maybe the question should be; by what means will this happen?

Homo sapiens are by all accounts a young species. Our kind have only roamed the earth for 200 000 years or so. Even if we during that time have experienced an Ice-age as well as large meteorites crashing and giant volcanoes erupting, we’ve yet to see anything really cataclysmic.

Isn’t it time soon?

The fifth (and latest) major extinction circa 65 millions of years ago eliminated > 17% of families on the planet, including the Dinosaurs. Most likely caused by one (possibly multiple) collisions between Earth and an extraterrestrial body (probably cometary), although some geologists point to a great volcanic event as a possible alternative.

The third major Extinction circa 245 millions of years ago, probably had the same cause as the fifth one, the others is generally regarded to have to do with major, and quite sudden, shifts in climate.

With this in mind it seems that climate change (a real one, not the made-up manmade one) or a large celestial crash should have the lowest odds in Vegas. There are however other possibilities.

Massive solar flare eruptions may both change climate and our geological situation at the same time as such an event would knock out most of our technology. We have cosmic rays from space as a constant threat. Reversal of the magnetic poles (especially if it happens fast) is also a possibility. The introduction of some alien substance, intelligent or not, will also be in this category. Just to mention a few.

But what about ourselves? Couldn’t we do it? Of course we could.

Some mean this is already on the way.

The transformation of the landscape, the overexploitation of species and, of course, pollution is said to contribute to the 30 000 species that go into the light each year. Although such doomsday sayers rarely count the number of new species emerging at the same time or even contemplate that many of those animals would go extinct regardless of human intervention, we can’t really dismiss it either.

My question in this scenario is; who cares? I mean why should be bother with useless animals rendered extinct? I don’t see the point. Only the animals we have use for or the ones who’re vital for ecosystems we depend on should be incorporated into any calculation.

The sixth extinction will only be dangerous if it happens to us, us humans. I don’t care if Polar Bears or any Condor turns into rotting corpses, why would I?

We could talk nuclear holocausts and I do admit it is a possibility, but not very likely one, at least not without other events preceding. It is far more likely that a comet strikes again. But wouldn’t a total break-down of our societies into anarchy, disaster and mass-starvation that will kill tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of people be the worst scenario?

I would think so, and this is also the only real threat. If a comet comes our way today or very soon, maybe we cannot do anything about it. The same goes for solar flares and cosmic rays. But give the human race enough time and we will come up with solid defenses against any such events. I’m absolutely sure about that.

What we don’t have a defense against is ourselves, and here’s where the real threat is.

And I’m not talking any made-up hoax about over-exploitation or the scam of manmade global warming. Such madness has nothing to do with this.

History shows us that the only thing we excel at more than our magical ability to survive and come up with new ways of adapting, is our imagination when it comes to kill each other.

There’s literarily no end to ways of killing other humans. Everything from The iron maiden to socialism, from stoning to The Pear of Anguish to burning people alive.
Instrumental in this task throughout the ages have been government. Not only the only entity able to start wars, it has also, with good aid from different religions, been the main inventor of torture devices and different ways of execution.

Certainly we can then say in our time and age, with the re-emerging of the state as our main contributor and effecter into human life; that we’re getting into more and more trouble. The bigger and stronger government, the more likely our doom seem.
So when our contemporary societies are heading for social- and economic upheavals with a very likely outcome of bigger and stronger government I cannot help thinking that the sixth extinction is closing in.

If my thoughts about our economic mess holds and the coming years will dwarf the “Great Depression” in severity, and if this leads to, what is usually the case, totalitarian ideas growing and that some of those funny little men with funny little plans comes to power, aren’t we then very close?

Just imagine if we would have had weapons of mass destruction available back in the 30’s. How would our world look today if that had been the case?

Personally I would prefer the comet or Alien scenario. At least then we could go out with a bang against an outside threat. Sadly even such an event, if we survived it, would be claimed by government. Surely they saved us? And so we’re back into the circle of expanding government and us closing in on our own destruction.

I think it is very ironic and quite amusing, that the most intelligent species ever evolved on this planet with the ability to survive and thrive only surpassed by the cockroach, will destroy itself. As long as collectivism and statism is growing, that’s the end of the road we’re heading for. My hope is that we go fast; I’ve always hated long goodbyes. So to you lefties and other lunatics out there; speed it up.

How to waste your vote

The Swedish Pirate Party is losing ground, both in the number of members and in polls that show the momentum gained from trials, Piratebay and the fascist monitoring society isn’t doing it for them anymore in the run-up to the general election.

This is not surprising. EU-elections are one thing, that’s about mismanagement, protests and something far away we can send rouge elements to in order to make a point. General elections are more about things closer to us such as taxes, pensions and who will be our voice in the world.

That EU nowadays makes over 70% of our laws goes by pretty unnoticed - electing 365 criminals who will dictate exiting rules such as highway speed isn’t.

Integrity, CCTV and YouTube videos will only get you so far. A party that is only discussing integrity and have an anti-surveillance stand without explaining the impact on pension schemes, the number of daycare centers or the level of taxation will not get sufficient support. Either the pirates will support the current semi-fascist useless bunch of soul-sucking entities now ruling us, or they will support the leftie nightmare of communist ghouls and tree hugging freaks that with our current world and its dilemmas will destroy us all. The pirate’s decision will be based on what side that will eliminate the most monitoring.

Is that enough to vote for pirates? Do voters feel excited by this?

I don’t like the current Swedish administration, too controlling, too fascist, too much central planning and they are members of the Church of Climatology which they try to force down the public’s throats. I cannot stand the ministers, and the Prime Mentalist looks like a cartoon character. The Swedish leadership should be thrown out of power.

But the hypocrisy and utter madness of the Socialists are even worse. And they have the ugliest leader ever seen; a person that’s been caught cheating on her taxes and used government credit-cards for her own personal amusement and hired black laborers.

In the end it doesn’t really matter though. The policies are almost identical, only the insane can see any difference between 1-2% higher or lower taxes – which is the only distinction between the two sides.

And it seems that the only real conflict so far is a system of household services tax relief. Apparently pretty popular but the leftie opposition has declared it will abolish if it wins the autumn election.

I’m against this idea myself. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great to lower taxes, but taxation shouldn’t be arbitrary and focused on a particular area. Better to lower them across the board and make them equal no matter what area or market we’re talking about. One particular section of the economy shouldn’t get tax relief when others don’t. That’s just wrong.

Anyway, to no surprise the Socialist opposition has several senior politicians that make good use of the system. Do as we say, don’t do as we do.

Something that has been going on for quite a while now is the merger of politicos within and in-between political parties. They are all becoming the same party. The political party. This is particularly noticeable whenever something threatens the hegemony of The Political Party. If a threat of alternative emerges that loathes the EU, wants to bring the problems with immigration up on the table or someone want stop the Orwellian nightmare from coming true, or if someone says that their Church of Climatology is a fraud, then watch The Political Party go to work.

Well, actually this merger has already happened, maybe not totally, it is still possible to find slim differences, at least in the rhetoric, but in actuality and as in consequence for your vote the disparity is hardly detectable.

A couple of more elections and they can merge into one.

And politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

And have you ever wondered, if both sides are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? If all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? If both sides want full employment and want to help the poor, WHY do we have high unemployment and so many poor people?

All everyone of them want is for you to be a good little citizen that vote and don’t mind being constantly under surveillance and say ‘thank you’ when getting pushed around by faceless bureaucrats. The problems they generate are supposed to keep you on your toes and you should pay attention to what they do to solve the problems they created. You should keep running in that wheel, never mind the banksters behind the curtain.

So why even bother to vote?

Isn’t even the 25min it takes to vote a waste of time?

Not to mention the immorality of voting in the first place. All you actually do is to vote about your neighbor’s money and who among the elitists that will control that money. No matter how you look at it, it cannot be ethically correct.

Here’s a thought. If you really want to vote and actually want to fight the powers that be, if you really want to roll back the surveillance society and stick it to the man, why not put that vote on the Libertarian Party? These are the guys that everyone hates, and if you ask Politicians and The Political Party who their main enemy is, libertarians will top that list.

Is it a wasted vote? Sure, in one way, the libertarian party has no chance to gain any real power, at least not in the nearest hundred years.

On the other hand consider what the libertarian promise to you as a voter.

Libertarians only say that if you work hard enough you might get rich, and in the libertarian world people would be free to explore their own potential and have free choices without surveillance. That’s pretty much it.

They don’t promise you happiness, money, food, jobs, love or honor. Libertarians are telling people that if they want those things they need to get it for themselves, work for it, sweat, and really put the effort in.

‘The Political Party’ say they will fix it for us, with our money and as they see fit. And you love that don’t you? Sure you do. But otherwise you do have an alternative to waste that voting on.