Monday, November 23, 2009

The ‘Na na na na na’ approach to a conflict

There are so many wrongs that have been done, are being done and will be done in the near future in the Afghanistan conflict. We could talk about oil, pipe-lines, opium trade blossoming, civilians dying, children suffering and so on, but let’s ignore that for a moment and focus on the winning versus the not winning of the so called war.
Basically the US, and its partners in crime haven’t really decided whether or not they want to win, probably because they don’t want to do anything so prosaic. I don’t really know what the real agenda is, but if I were to make a guess it’s about three things; distraction, money and strategy.

When our economies, US especially, is going down the drain it is good to have peoples focus elsewhere. Even if a vast majority has a negative opinion, it’s still better than having people realizing that the biggest robbery in human history has just taken place. Also, since the only positive number in the American economy at the moment is military spending, to cut that would decrease GDP, and the enemy class cannot have that, people might find out how they have been fooled. And people in general want to win conflicts, even those that didn’t want to go there in the first place wants to win, it’s that us against them feeling. So there’s a distraction argument for being in Afghanistan.

Money, of course, is also a reason. The protection of valuable oil findings and pipe-lines has its place as well as the drug trade. Arms-dealers, certain banks and some shadowy groups have earned a lot of money from this conflict, and they have no incentive to stop the killing.

The strategy can involve several things, but certainly not to win, as mentioned the US has no intention of winning. Instead one can see the encircling of Iran as a reason for staying, or any of the other already mentioned. So I would argue that the strategy is to not have a strategy to win. How can I say that? Because this isn’t really a war, it’s a conflict at best, a skirmish. If this really was a war and the US really wanted to win, they would destroy any opposition in a matter of weeks.

There is only one way to fight a war. You commit your nation's resources - material and the most precious of all, human - to the complete obliteration of your enemy. You mass those resources against each objective in turn, without reservation, without holding back, without care for collateral damage or world opinion. You do so until your adversary sues for peace, not because it is the political thing to do, not for expedience, but for one and only one reason: they're tired of dying. There is no "armistice" or "cease fire" in a war. There is only victory or defeat. There is only death or life. Collateral damage, including the loss of innocent life, is a known price that will be paid, although the toll is not of concern in that regard - only the certainty that it will occur.

So if America really committed millions of troops, flew in all their support or started to throw tactical nukes around, they would eliminate every single cave, all Taliban’, all terrorists and Bin Laden would be found in bits and pieces, and they would do so in a very short amount of time. Of course tens of thousands of innocent would die and the world opinion would hate America, but they would win the war and they would really show what happens when you attack the US. I’ve not done the math, but I believe that a month or two of serious waring would mean less innocent dead, less of a cost and would be a much more effective way of making both a point and sending a message. As it stands now, 7 years and counting as many as a million plus people may have died, even more so if counting Iraq and the economic cost is staggering, and there’s no end in sight.

The US and its buddies need to decide, either end it, or leave. But they don’t want to, you see. For the reasons already mentioned and other motives, instead they take what can only be described as the ‘Na na na na na’ approach and kill some, but leave others. They bomb some mountains, but not others, effectively only pissing people off, creating more enemies than they had to start with. And the Afghan people are used to fighting an overwhelming enemy, so there’s really no end here. There are also the soon to be terrorist attacks that will hit one or several targets, such events will probably coincide with worsened public polls or the next economic crash, so another reason for this little conflict to not end.

What the rest of the countries are doing there? Hell if I know, wasting tax money and showing how much they care about one village while the town next to it is destroyed maybe? And since the conflict in itself is highly questionable to start with, we should leave and at the same time tell the Americans to either fight the war or get the hell out.

Gestapo does house-calls

In Sweden, just as in many other non-democratic countries, we have speed cameras alongside many roads. The effect of mentioned cameras is that people drive slow-fast-slow-fast, and even if you do so in some concert with the radio, it’s still sort of annoying and makes the traffic move strangely. Another effect is the high costs, the costs are so high that many camera-booths are empty; the surveillance people move the actual camera around, which makes the whole thing into a sort of game, ‘guessing when or if any flashes cometh’.

And as with any law there are ways to go around it. In this case the Sieg Heil people, wanting to send out lots of bills, need both the driver and the car registration-plate on the same picture; otherwise you can refuse to pay. Consequently inventive Swedes pull down the sunscreen, put up a newspaper in front of the face or simply use a mask, and so they can go how fast they want. Me, I usually put up the middle finger if I’m in a hurry, otherwise I try to follow the example seen below.

However, the high and mighty and their prison guards have no intention of letting us off that easy. As a result the police are now doing house-calls, apparently make use of some sort of facial-recognition device or, hilarious enough, use their own judgment depending on things like noose-form, the shape of a ear, or how the beard looks and so on.

In other words, you are guilty, no matter if you were driving or not.

There have also been arguments for that the liability lays with the car-owner no matter what. If this becomes the case I reckon that many cars suddenly will be owned by babies, cats and dead people, something that again will be rectified by yet another law.

To you people out there that haven’t a dying relative in the car or a wife about to give birth, to you I would like to urge to do as been done in this movie or make do with similar solutions. Bring a shoot-gun, a steel-saw or something of the sort and make any post and camera into scrap. I’ve been thinking to collect all of these I can find and drop them off outside the home of some politician. Maybe torch his car while I’m at it, but you’ll find your own way. Since Gestapo will get you for breaking the law no matter what, what’s the diff?

Self-imposed stupidity and the deceitful bastards

I’ve always been interested in what’s going on in the world. Reading pretty much everything I can get my hands on, always checking several angles and multiple sources, more out of interest than to expose lies. But there is a problem with this sort of thinking, because you sooner or later realize how deep the rabbit-hole really goes. It’s like an iceberg floating at sea. An iceberg has a large portion of its body beneath the surface, only the top can be seen. All of us can see what’s above the surface, just as all of us can see some of the lies exposed. We think we know how much lies and BS our enemies spread around, we have a healthy mistrust of those in charge and now and again we can read about some scandal. However, just as with the iceberg, what we see is only a small fraction of the whole picture.

I’m utterly convinced that this is why the righteous elitists don’t want the internet to run amok. With internet you can not only check the facts, you can also find new facts, contradictory facts. Only by comparing one newspaper with another questions will arise, checking a third, a fourth, and then reading about another viewpoint at some information-site, watching the bloggers go to work and listening to independent radio, more clues pop up. A comparison between how different countries delivers news also gives additional perspectives. But the real revelation doesn’t come until you have followed the news for a while. If you do, slowly, but surely, things start to unravel.

Generally it goes something like this.

A story becomes newsworthy for some reason; commonly the story has an element of ‘emotion’ attached to it such as indignation, anger or sexuality, but the most common sentiment is fear. It can be fear of war, fear of some disease, fear of losing one’s job and so on. Without us being afraid, much fewer papers would be sold.

An example is how journalists write about the environment. Any pseudo-scientists can get his 15min of fame if he conjures up a fear-argument regarding a certain issue. Hair-spray can cause the ozone layer to expand, refrigerators can be dangerous items, and cars may destroy some animals’ habitats. There isn’t any limit for such cons other than the imagination.

And it doesn’t even need to be very believable or very likely. If there’s a chance that it could maybe be a 0.0001% increase of risk of getting cancer by eating 194 apples each day, you can bet your life on a headline that states “apples causes cancer”. And both the “scientists” and the news reporter conveniently forget to include how many of the investigated that likes to smoke fifteen packs a day, lives near Chernobyl or work with dangerous chemicals. But the fun doesn’t really start until the next scientist argues to have found a correlation between a decrease in apple production and an increase in car emissions. Hence global warming has claimed more victims - farmers growing apples are having a hard time, in addition to fewer apples for the populace to eat. Since these stories often enough can be read in the same paper, sometimes even on the same day, it seems to imply that if we want our poor defenseless children to be able to attract cancer; we need to stop driving cars.

Contradictions of terms are very common within the media, especially comes to the scam of manmade global warming. The papers are warning us about the doomsayers and conspiracists that claim that global taxation and more restrictions will give more power to a small elitist group, at the same time the papers argue that if we don’t cut emissions we will all die. Journalists say that we shouldn’t buy the 2012-hype, but in the very next breath Polar Bears will go extinct, polar caps will melt away and lowlands everywhere will end up under water, killing millions. Its okay for journalists to warn about the impending end of the world, but damn anyone who argues any such notion outside the mainstream.

And while the world cools down, the politicians and those scientists who should be warning us about it are insisting it's warming up. Even as the polar bears multiply, they insist the Arctic is turning into the Mediterranean. And just so you know, there are no polar bears anyway. They went extinct a thousand years ago. It was warmer than today during the Middle Ages, therefore the ice must have melted then, therefore the polar bears cannot now go extinct because they already did that back then. So with the logic of the insane, there are no Polar Bears, not anymore, if ever, they are made up creatures like Batman, Hillary Clinton and Bart Simpson.

They also let the main culprits go free. The sun has an impact on our climate by a factor of 99%, still they never blame the sun for draught - it’s the factories you know... Volcanoes, cosmic rays, rainforests and oceans make up the last percentage, but have you ever seen or heard any journalists blame distant stars or Vesuvius for Polar Bears dying?

And when some hacker reveal internal discussions among the scientists were we can clearly see some of the scams being built, what do they do? They report about it like “University computer hacked” or “Stolen material on the loose”. It’s all rather dull you know - nothing to see, just a computer crime. The most interesting with that story is that scientists are allowed to come forward to “explain themselves”, covering up their deceit with journalists consent. And again they get an argument to shut down internet for mere mortals. A hacker? Stolen material? University computer intrusion? Huhu… that’s horrible, we need another government agency monitoring this situation.

And they still claim that there’s a consensus among scientists, which is far, far away from any reality. With all the billions going to researches and universities to investigate manmade global warming, I’m surprised there’s not a bigger consensus. It’s all about the money, tax money that is. Apply for founds to research man’s impact on the environment, and you get lots of money and possibly fame. Claim it’s all a hoax, and you get ostracized, lose your job and get laughed at by media. In such an anti-scientific era you need to be surprised that 33 000 scientists sues Al Gore for fraud.

Manmade global warming is a contemporarily transcending religion. And just as with any rigid religious belief, heretics get thrown into the fire while the butt kissers get wealthy.

But the dogmatic views comes to manmade global warming isn’t the only scam being packaged and sold to unbelievers. There’s plenty of stuff each day. As mentioned earlier, you can see through some of them, but only when you gain the perspective of both time and overview you understand that pretty much everything we’re told is fictional. The problem is that once you understand what’s beneath the surface and you know the depth of the hole, you’ll not be happier for it, on the contrary. When you understand and get enlightened, you’ll get frustrated, angry and apathetic. This is probably one reason why so many of you are avoiding using your intellect. In a deep rooted indirect way most of you understand that knowing isn’t pleasurable, instead ignorance is bliss.

So in a way, you all chose to be idiots. Internet is (or rather was) about to change that, so is it then surprising that our bellowed leaders want to regulate, control and tax our online activities?