Thursday, September 9, 2010

He´s wrong

One political leader in Sweden has said he has a hard time seeing any difference between the anti-democratic racist party and the anti-democratic communist party. Of course the lefties are going through the roof on this one wondering how the guy can’t make the distinction.

I do wonder the same myself. The so called “racists” in this case do sprung from neo-Nazis and have strange ideas about collectivism and democracy, but all in all they are not that much different (today) in comparison to the rest of the political bunch. In any case, even if they were openly fascists they would still not hold a candle to communists.

So of course this particular political leader was wrong in his statement. Making a choice between the political party that has been dubbed “racist” or the communists isn’t a choice.

I would prefer Muslim fundamentalists over communists’. I would rather eat a cactus covered in manure than even think the thought of voting communist.

The worst ideology, the worst mass murdering thought of all human history VS a supposed “racist” party that’s really just like all the rest? That’s not a choice, the comparison isn’t even relevant.

The “racists” may very well be racists, some of them are in any case and from my experience their followers are complete morons. But in this case they stand as shining beacons of sanity and normality in comparison with the nastiest people that has ever inhabited this planet.

And so it continues…

On a good day it gets this big...

In an interview with Financial Times, Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank, proposed that Eurozone members that break the region's rules on public finances should be excluded temporarily from Europe’s political decision-making.

On a first look at such a statement maybe it doesn’t sound too bad. I mean they should have some leverage, some kind of punishment against rough elements not doing what has been decided. Right? Europhiles will probably have nothing against this interpretation or usage of any such potential rules.

However, we need to consider two things here; even a real hardliner Euro-lover should do the same.

Firstly we need to see his statement in context with the rest of the interview wherein he, among other things, said that “we need the same rules at the global level” and described the rise in importance of the Group of 20 summits, which also include China and India, as “one of the major structural transformations of global governance over the last three years”.

Straight out of A-Z book for NWO-conspiracy nuts isn’t it? But you don’t need to put on your favorite tin-foil hat to see a future were the world economies (in reality its leaders) dictates interest rates and money policies on a global scale. That is the future we are seemingly heading for and a decade or two down the line I would be very surprised if that’s not a reality.

Secondly this is a statement that cannot be implemented today (or soon) in the Eurozone. The asymmetric shocks, people’s unwillingness to comply to with the wishes of the European parliament and an already very upset populace in the more sensible countries paying for the less prudent ones’ mistakes, makes such an suggestion very hard to follow through. In essence Mr Trichet is actually saying something to accomplish something else.

I can only think of one thing that could make him utter such a stupidity right now; another country is about to default. Maybe they are about to revealed that they have found yet another hundred billion Euroes of Greek debt hidden away, but I feel it is far more likely that another country need a rescue package.

If so, then his statement will be a prelude to making and passing such legislation a couple of years from now, because if yet another country shows horrid numbers and is heading for a fall, such a suggestion can be taken seriously and would make more sense to a dumb down populace. He cannot pass such legislation today, but tomorrow with more problems or something more to point at, he might be able to.

In either case there is a fishy smell over this guy and his suggestion. Something isn’t being said. I can bet my right shoe that there is something he’s not telling us. Stay tuned to find out what it is.

I can hardly wait, can you?

And it burns, burns, burns…

While everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over some ridiculous sect in Florida saying they want to burn one or two Korans, other funny things goes on in other places around the globe.

Among others Christians in Gaza City have issued an appeal to the international community and a plea for protection against the increased attacks by Muslim extremists. Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.

Noooo… I am shocked…

But, as always, some people need to go that extra mile.

International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned and are trying to awake people to a case in Pakistan were a Christian man, Arshed Masih died recently after Muslims burned him alive for refusing to recant his faith. Additionally, a Muslim policeman apparently raped Masih’s wife.

This world is hilarious, isn’t it?

So while the Obamination, who coincidently, right now, is murdering Muslims faster than I can write this sentence, is condemning a Pastor for issuing a burning decree on books - Muslims are doing the very same thing, only worse. I wonder were the outcry is in those cases…

The final solution

Take your army to the Haunted Forest and bring me that girl and her dog. Do what you like with the others, but I want her alive and unharmed! They'll give you no trouble, I promise you that. I've sent a little insect on ahead to take the fight out of them! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Roaming around internet, which I frequently do, and reading crap from other libertarian minded bloggers it suddenly hit me. The solution. I think I got it, or at least in part.

Socialism, statism, collectivism whatever you want to call it, has several big advantages. They never need to explain anything, all they need to do is to promise a pink shimmering existence and sell that notion with ‘feelings’ and people eat it up. And anyone arguing against such ‘happiness’ and those that don’t want a “free buffet” for all is per automatic ‘evil’. How can we compete with that when everyday man is so dumb that the word “special” comes to mind?

We can’t.

And even if we could. Let’s say we get power to actually make (or rather brake) policies, how long will it take before the everlasting tranquility of socialist heaven will be packed, sold, bought and celebrated among the populace? Not long. People are suckers for collectivism and anyone with a slick marketing gimmick selling “free stuff” will get listen to.

So if ever in power this is a problem to be dealt with and here I think I’ve thought of something.

You see the enemy class in general and politicians in particular go after power, money, and fame and have a hunger to control, rule over and decide over other people’s lives. This can be solved in one other way - via television and letting them keep their jobs.

Let me explain what I mean.

A libertarian society (with slight differences depending on who you ask) would mean a country with small taxes (or other revenue) to pay for inner and outer defense (justice-system and military) and that’s pretty much it. There would be no public companies, no politically controlled unions and no socialized healthcare and so on. In effect our total tax level, if we stick with taxes as a way of paying for it, would be around 2-3%. Let’s say our hearts bleeds a little and we stick to some socialism and have certain aspects of healthcare and schools still publically paid for, then our total tax would end up somewhere around 5-6%.

And then the kicker; we keep all politicians and all their amenities, all of their benefits, meeting halls and so on and pay for it with taxes. This would approximately mean one additional percentage to the budget. But we don’t let them have any power. They can still have meetings, debates and referendums, but only among themselves. They keep their ridiculous salaries, but have no say whatsoever in the lives of others.

Why would they agree on this? Well, they wouldn’t. As said in the beginning their goal is to gain power, fame and cash so they can feel important and ruin everything for the rest of us. So my suggestion is simple – we give them a reality-show! If we did their lives wouldn’t change too much. They would still have everything they had before except the power to tell the rest of us what to do.

I frankly believe that most of them would be satisfied with such an arrangement.

Think about it. They would still be famous, they would still have their income and people would still listen to them. Companies would still invite them to speak at conferences and being a TV-star would give them a certain amount of power too. But to further give them a sense of “real” power they can vote among themselves, once a week/month, to decide who among them get thrown out of parliament. Maybe there can also be a pit of crocodiles involved in the voting-process so they still possess some power over life and death?

And every time debates get boring or the number of viewers decline, we throw in some vodka and prostitutes in the mix. Again no difference to today’s situation comes to political life.

I think that this is something we libertarians need to think about and adopt to our teachings. We need to swallow our pride and cast aside ideology for a moment. For the good of humankind.

Of course we need to get power first and that’s a whole other story, but I do believe I am on to something here. Not really finished with this thought process but the basics are sound and right. Or what do you think?