Tuesday, April 6, 2010

A choice between Labour and Labour

I cannot help seeing tons of similarities between Swedish and British politics. During the last Swedish general election the supposed “right-wing” party Moderaterna (Tories’ equivalent) took several steps to the left, changed their rhetoric to better suit the common man and adopted several ideas and sentences regularly used by the Social Democrats (Labour).

Even before the similarities between the supposed left and the supposed right was minimal, after that election and during this period the similarities have been even more obvious.

The inbreed devotees will of course not agree. According to the politicos there’s a huuuuuge distinction.

A 1-2% difference in taxation, one or two laws among thousands and one department less or more is what they are fighting over nowadays, but listening to spin-doctors and those closest to power the very future of the world is at stake.

What is even more distressful then the slim differences, what is really worrisome are the parts were they are in agreement. Both sides want to be member of the European Union and are happily licking boots in Brussels. Both sides want that totalitarian control-grid and CCTV everywhere. Both sides pray at the Church of Climatology. Both sides want to save the chiiildreeen and hug feminists. Both sides love Keynesian economics and have no problems throwing billions at banks and selling out our future while their serfs stumble further down into despair.

As said, the similarities with Britain are staggering.

The Tories doesn’t want to change anything, and the current Labour government is probably the worst government in the history of mankind and wants to go further down the same path.

Listening to the British debate and political discussion I cannot see any reason voting for Cameron versus voting for the cyclops. The scot is horrendously ugly and probably evil incarnate, but seen to the policies a vote for either is a wasted vote.

Or, if in doubt, check this clip out:

Okay, that was Tony the war criminal and Cameron, but you get the idea…

Even worse than that, whoever takes power are going to haft to face the worst economic disaster the British isles have faced in many centuries. There is actually only one way out of that mess and it isn’t the LabourTories way. The truth is that only the illusion of choice and democracy exist, but in reality, Brits live in a two party autocracy.

Americans can probably recognize this too, so can many people on this planet.

The mainstream statism and political correctness they have mixed with five drops of fascism, four drops of socialism and one very tiny drop of capitalism is the road pretty much everyone is on. The comparison above comes to the main ‘adversaries’ in Swedish politics are applicable everywhere.

No wonder a depression awaits us.

A leftie would probably argue that Labour/social democrats /The Democratic Party have turn towards the middle, become more ‘right’ so to say. This isn’t so. In some aspects they have abandon socialism, but instead they’ve adapted much of the collectivism that we normally call ‘fascism’.

The same can be said about the supposed conservative parties.

The initial thought from both sides was probably to win the electorate and then make more gradual changes as to not scare off voters.

The problem here is twofold.

Firstly it is much easier being to the left in politics, it appeals more to the hearts of people and the rhetoric is so simple a coma patient can do it. And since they cannot only use words, they also need to act; this means that leftie policies become the winner. Secondly by moving slightly towards the middle they have adopted corporatism as a biproduct and so fascism strikes. And the longer time this goes on and the more they suck up to the righteous and politically correct, the deeper the chasm gets.

If you want change, real change, the main parties should not be your choice, in any country. Vote communist, pick the Pirate Party, UKIP, or vote libertarian - which is what you all should do. Such parties will make a difference if gaining power. Sure the communists will kill us all more quickly, but hey, a real change.

Alex Jones is worth listening to

Im not a big Alex Jones follower...But the guy do have a point.

Also read my post from earlier today on about the same thing as AJ speaks on.


Following the first horrific Bagdad story exposed thanks to WikiLeaks and despite the bullying from several governments, and there are even more stories are coming out. This one is more recent and equally horrific, in a way even worse since this is face to face murders and no-one is hiding behind a screen or shooting from far away.

I would like you to go to this story:

On February 12 of this year, U.S. forces entered a village in the Paktia Province in Afghanistan and, after surrounding a home where a celebration of a new birth was taking place, shot dead two male civilians (government officials) who exited the house in order to inquire why they had been surrounded, and then shot and killed three female relatives (a pregnant mother of ten, a pregnant mother of six, and a teenager).

I have checked most of the links and the facts and they all pen out. How long are the war criminals going to allowed continuing and for how long will Sweden and other countries silently stand by and let the murders take place?

AGAIN! Notice that the old media DOES NOTHING until the scandal has been exposed...


This is a partly stolen post from the head of the Pirate Party in Sweden. I thought he formulated the whole murdering incident in a really good way and wanted to share that in English.

The people on this picture have three seconds left to live.

Yesterdays big topic (with maybe the US media as exception) was the video of attack helicopters in Bagdad that WikiLeaks had decrypted and published. This video shows what authorities want to censor and control the internet. This particular video the US have gone extreme lengths to stop from airing.

The video can be found here on YouTube and show how two pilots in Bagdad see eight men calmly walking down the street. Two of them are reporters from Reuters and has cameras thrown over their backs. “Weapons, they are armed”, one pilot says when he sees this calm bunch of men walking and talking to each other. “Request permission to fire”. And then one helicopter starts to fire at the group.

Afterwards the pilots laugh and admire their progress.

However, Bagdad is seemingly not without caring people. Some people in a minivan detects that there are a lot of dead and injured people further down the street and starts to look for survivors presumably to get them to a hospital.

In the van two children are detectable.

The pilot request permission to fire again. This time at the van and the merciful helpers.

He then fires.

Then they laugh again.

A bit later when hearing there are injured children at the site the comment heard is: “Well, that’s their own damn fault for bringing kids to a battle.”

I’ve also seen some writers online saying the same thing. One of the ‘excuses’ for this atrocity. If you live in Bagdad, aren’t you supposed to have children? They were probably out shopping for food that don’t exist, driving to the blown-up school or just happened to pass by and wanted to help the wounded. Do you drive the children home first and then come back to help?

This happened back in 2007 and the American military have all along claimed that this was insurgents that opened fire at the chopper. This we now know is a deliberate lie.


You could argue that it is possible to mistake a bunch of men for enemies. But when they are calmly walking down the street talking to each other very much in the open?

And you cannot mistake the eagerness to kill and then the sheer joy of the slaughter. Do US military personnel have quotas to meet? That’s the question I ask myself. It feels like a very sick computer game with bloodthirsty drunken thugs doing the shooting.

But okay, let’s play devil’s advocate for a moment. Let’s say this first bit is an honest mistake, I hardly see how, but let’s say so. After all shit happens in wars, especially in wars that are highly questionable in the first place. This isn’t the first time reporters or innocent get killed, and it won’t be the last.

What happens after the first shooting is however in no way a mistake.

You can clearly see unarmed people trying to help wounded. You can also clearly see people moving inside the van. Maybe not so clearly that it is children (you do if you look closely), but they certainly don’t look male or armed. There’s no reason to fire, no reason at all. And clearly stated in the Geneva Convention it says that unarmed, or incapacitated and wounded, red cross personnel (or similar) should not be fired upon.

This is a war crime. On tape. That the US military and government wanted to keep secret.

Without a free internet this would never have come to your attention!

This is the kind of stuff, that together with child-pornography, would be (and are) the first things to get censured.

Survivors of child molestation rarely want censorship, this for the very same reason as the families of these murdered people. Censorship allows governments to sweep such things, and much more, under the rug. Hiding it away from scrutiny. They can then claim they have done something, and the ‘problem’ isn’t as visible anymore. But still there, now harder to get at.

A free internet makes it much tougher for governments to get away with war crimes. It makes it harder for them to get away with scandals and corruption. A free internet is required to make governments, the very same governments that want to censor internet, liable and hold accountable for corruption and cover-ups.

With this in mind is it any wonder that authorities make house calls to WikiLeaks and tries to stop them from publishing their videos and findings?

I would personally go so far to say that without a free internet, we have no democracy. This is what at stake and if you haven’t figured that out before, I hope you have now.