Killing 3 year olds – eugenics is fun!

Sorry, but mommy and daddy has decided to put you down 
- put your finger in this outlet please...  

Abortion is in itself a controversial subject - and it’s the only political or social issue were I always find myself waver.

Being libertarian most issues are automatic, it’s about self-reliance, making own decisions, and fighting to be free from others and free from the state. Most of the time having a libertarian persuasion is consequently reasonably simple; I should be free to make my decisions about myself, my body and my life until I encounter another individual with equal right to his/her body and life.

Comes to abortion however it is not that simple. We´re talking about life after all, but when is the fetus a viable human? After how many months? A woman should have all right to her own body, but should she have so above another human who´s life depends on her decision? Albeit a human only beginning to form.

Putting human life and individuals right to live above all else create a conflict comes to the issue of abortion and I´ve always had a hard time picking a side.

Normally I come to the conclusion that most countries have it about right. This because I cannot in any way or form side with those considering the woman and her right to her body as absolute – not when another life is in the balance, and I can neither side with the other side arguing that life is created and sacred already at conception – if so, why is not each sperm and each egg sacred as well?

Having a couple of months or so to make a decision about abortion is therefore, according to me, a decent compromise.

However, when you start to compromise about life and these kinds of decisions; you always get freaky eugenic trolls like this popping up.

Is a child living on borrowed time until its three years old? And why that limitation? Is a 3,5 year old able to make own decisions or be smart enough to grasp how the government own his or her red butt and can do whatever they want with it. Has a 4y old passed over from parasitic living to become a viable example of human life? Has a 5y old? 6? 7?

If we listen to government and politicians we could assume that the transition to becoming a self-reliant existing being never will occur. Every step of the way, from the cradle to the grave, government entities and different groups owns much, if not all, of us and our decisions.

Could we not make the assumption that government (or our parents) has the right to kill us throughout our entire existence?

Keeping United Nations spokespersons in mind and listening to people like Bill "let´s kill msn" Gates, this notion does not seem as farfetched as it may seem at first glance.

And since we know that there are plenty of Malthusian f*ks roaming around freely, can we not assume then that genocide is always in the cards?

Reading about “scientists” asking for leniency comes to infanticide it seems that we´ve really reach the bottom of the barrel. Not only are our societies crashing before our very eyes due to Fractional Reserve Banking and government running amok – on issue after issue morality too seem to be lost.

Ethics and common sense is no longer part of western societies. Even during the Dark Age´s you could argue that our humanity did not go lost, can we really say the same today?

Regardless I would love to see the first court case were parents snuffed their 2y old because the child was such a burden to family finances and hear these two lowlifes as “experts”.

The world is a fun place, isn´t it?

You gotto love those experts

Been checking around newspapers this morning and just as any blind and deaf leprosy infected monkey would have guessed; the pundits and so called “experts” are out in force telling us why Mittbama Oromney lost to the number 1 choice and current puppet of the banksters.

Of course Mittens is a Mormon and he did a few TV-blunders which both are mentioned by almost every pundit in the western hemisphere as key reasons. Other factors mentioned are Obama´s great re-election campaign and how he showed statesmanship during Sandy. Mittens shortcomings are also frequently mentioned as well as him being too far right (Hahaha!).

So far I´ve not seen any paper mentioning Ron Paul and the more libertarian wing of GOP that either voted for Dr Paul or didn´t vote at all. Those people make up a good portion of voters, perhaps not enough to swing over the win to Romney, but not far off. Even more importantly are the independent voters that could have voted for the Mormon if he´d brought a few Ron Paul ideas to the table or if (even better) if Ron Paul had been the candidate. Ron Paul was in this sense the ONLY republican candidate that stood a chance of beating the warmongering black guy.

But the most important and most significant trait, what really won the election, was how the banksters went all in to keep the scam rolling and how Bernie of the Fed promised unlimited bail-outs and unlimited printing just a few months before the election. Once this happened only a fool could believe that anyone else but the Obamination would win.

Another reason why Mittens Orama lost was that - contrary to what papers say - his politics are almost exactly the same as the sitting presidents. On point after point two presidential candidates have never run on so similar agendas, so why vote for the unknown factor such as a rich Mormon who eats babies when a black well-spoken politically correct guy is already there?

Of course the bankster endorsement, the lacking Libertarian vote and the similarities between candidates will not be part of the consensus. It does not fit into the norm of things.

Looks to me like the debt serf system is functioning spectacularly and completed with wireless Obamanet the show now will go on. Worldwide financial destruction and following wars and cumulating despair is to follow, and so with it further extremism, harsher rule, and Nobel Prizes handed out to camp guards like candy.

The end is nigh folks. 

the biggest none surprise ever

As I´ve known for many months; the current Goldman Sachs puppet Obama won the election. It was never exciting, it was never a race, and anyone paying attention knew Barack would win. When the banksters go all in and when Bernie the spender promises unlimited printing a few months before voting, the game was already over.

Goldman Sachs puppet #2 Mitt Romney was never even considered. 

Unified Scandinavia – let´s do it!

Since I started to think about the notion of a unified Scandinavia, the thought has festered and grown and the more I contemplate the more I believe it would be a really good idea.

Of course there are obstacles and many and various questions need to be asked and answered, but the thought has merit and to me it is strange that no political figure or organization is pushing this agenda.

A few stats to first consider:

Country	inhabitants  2011	GDP/capita 2011	GDP - 2011 USD      billion
Sweden	9,480,205	$43,000	$458
Norway	4,973,029	$53,300	$479.3
Denmark	5,543,453	$37,600	$333.20
Iceland	313,183	$38,500	$14.05
Finland	5,402,758	$47,386	$255.30
	25,712,628	$43,957.20	$1,061
excluding Finland*	20,309,870	43,100	$805

*it can be argued both that Finland is not part of Scandinavia and that she would not be able or willing to join

What I regard as the hardest initial issues to get through are the memberships in the EUSSR (Denmark, Sweden and Finland) and the NATO membership (Denmark, Norway, Iceland).

Of course I would argue that NATO membership should be refused and consequently no Scandinavia in direct alliance with warmongering U.S. and their bloodthirsty allies. New referendums about EU membership is a given and we already know that if such referendum occurs, especially with the notion of a unified Scandinavia in the balance, all current members would vote to leave.

The EU-part can probably be solved, but the NATO issue might be harder since we all know that politicians want more political warmongering entities, not less. I believe that our elected frauds would promote and push for membership, so this is something we need to keep an eye on.

When these hurdles are passed, we have several administrative and government formation issues to tackle.

For example, should we continue to live with a constitutional monarchy as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, or become a republic like Finland? Personally I think that we should keep the Monarchy and that Queen Margrethe II of Scandinavia (Denmark today) should be the new head of state. It’s the oldest line of the monarchies, and since I believe that Copenhagen should be capital it’s sort of goes together. Also we cannot circumvent the historical meaning of having Queen Margrethe II as regent when her namesake created the Kalmar Union (1397-1523). We should keep the Monarchy as its part of our history; it comes with traditions, and since it is an unchangeable part of society it will work as stabilizer. The other royal lines should get duchy-assignments or perhaps assigned certain tasks such as eternal seat in some council(s) or some such.

As mentioned I believe that Copenhagen should be capital. It’s close to ancient (and still viable) trade routes and with the bridge over to Malmö the entire area is very suitable. It’s the capital closest to the continent and I see a lot of building- and development potential and I believe that within a few years the Copenhagen-Malmö capital will house 3-4 million people making it a hub for the new Scandinavian state.

As you can tell I am talking about a completely unified Scandinavia – not a union as EUSSR or a loose coalition. This may be the hardest pill to swallow for Norwegians and Finns, so I don´t believe it’s doable, but I believe it would be essential for the success of this idea. History shows us that if we want this to succeed we need an authoritative central power. Of course the Scandinavian heritage include local governance and certain amounts of decision made close to the ones effected, and one of the main reasons the Kalmar Union broke up was because the Danish royalty govern too much for themselves with little or no understanding of the freedom of the Swedish peasantry or local laws/rules/noblemen. Consequently there has to be a balance, but I strongly believe that central authority is necessary.

IF all of the above can be solved we come to the issue of how government should be organized, what constitution we should have and what set of laws there should be. This is a chapter by itself and I am probably not the best person to answer how this could work or how the transition could be organized, but generally speaking there has to be a clear and obvious foundation. This means that the constitutional laws need to be few, to the point and easy to understand.

I am not only taking as from my political viewpoint here. The foundations of this new set of laws need to be understood by all and give a clear directive about the freedoms and rights of inhabitants. This is very important, almost as important as content. The content CANNOT include arbitrary feminist stupidities or subjective ideas about what equality is. IF for some reason such madness will follow over from today’s laws (which it will) it should be in the common sections of ordinary laws. The constitution should address and apply for all and consequently we cannot have any sort of “right to work” or women’s rights to sit on every board – not in the constitution.

We also need a constitutional court – perhaps based in Oslo.

And finally we need to solve the problem of common denominators. The tax rates, military founding, municipal sizes and forms, etc. etc.

Of course the lowest common denominator SHOULD be the norm, but our leaders will see it differently. This will probably be the biggest problem as I see it, even though our politicians will play it cool and not see any problem at all.

The final controversy needed to be solved is that of language. Although all the Scandinavian languages are related (except for Finnish) the differences are still large enough to pose certain problems. Personally I believe that we should have one official language and that language should be Swedish. The reason is that Sweden is the biggest most populace country and Swedish is by far the most spoken language, and I believe we need one single official language. Naturally all other languages should have some kind of official stamp, perhaps as minority language, but in order to unify, truly unify, Scandinavia one language should be taught in all schools and be the one single official language.

Well, there you have a short version of what I believe to be a really good idea. Obviously I´ve skipped a few issues and just skimmed the surface here, but I just want to convey what is very likely to occur in during The Greatest Depression. Not my version perhaps, but I think we´ll see a more Scandinavian unity up ahead.