What is the plan in Afghanistan?

The messages surrounding the Afghan war seem mixed to say the least.


(Image: Explosive sniffer dog overlooking Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Credit to Carl Montgomery for the photo.)

Washington Post: US Officials Offer Dismal Review of War in Afghanistan


They call it a challenge 'much tougher than Iraq'. Well what did you expect! You know Afghanistan's tribal/xenophobic history. They just don't like foreigners, and will drag the fight on until you leave. Simple.

"Afghanistan has been known over the years as the graveyard of empires," he said. "We cannot take that history lightly." - General Petraeus, head of US Command.

Exactly - which is why it would be best to leave sooner rather than later. The economies of the ISAF countries, especially the US, cannot afford the war to drag on. I have some sympathy for the military commanders in Afghanistan - like ex-CIA man Ray McGovern, they probably realise they are stuck in an unwinnable war.


(Image: the road to Bamiyan, Aghnainstan. An example of the difficult terrain our forces have to fight in.)

(Image: Ukrainian war memorial to their dead in the 1980s Afghan War. That conflict lasted ten years, and played a part in the collapse of the Soviet Union.)

Meanwhile...Afghanistan's Karzai Offers Peace to 'Friendly Taliban' (VOANews)

A good idea to try and 'divide and conquer' the Taliban. But, history shows the Afghan mountain-dwellers tend to stand united against foreigners; the only time they are divided is when they go back to fighting each other once the outsiders are dispatched.

All of this set against the background of Obama's Afghan-Pakistani surge policy...I am not convinced as to the purposes and merits of the Afghan campaign.

But hey, the CIA probably loves the other 'surge'; opium production since the invasion has increased to 93% of world production in 2007. The Taliban outlawed opium cultivation, and in 2001 the output was 91% lower than in 2000. But since their ousting, production has soared. (Am I suggesting the lovely people in the US Federal government would deal drugs? No. I'm telling you.)

Anyways, squeal all you want about 'getting behind the cause' or some such, the war is unwinnable and should be ended ASAP.

Fox News: 9/11 Truthers are 'mentally ill'

So first, FX (a Fox channel) broadcasts Rescue Me, in which a character who believes 9/11 was a neoconservative government op is featured.

Then Fox News (for the 100th time) slurs 9/11 'Truthers', this time describing them as 'mentally ill'.

I have no idea why, such a positive portrayal of 9/11 truth was given by FX. (Most 'truther' fictional characters are portrayed as either crazy or drug-taking losers.) Although it does promote - by saying it was a neoconservative conspiracy - the myth that 9/11 truth is a left-wing concept, thus shutting out half of the population to the truth movement. There are no wings when it comes to prosecuting mass murderers.







(Images: Top, 'September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows'...in other words, it's the 9/11 COVERUP not the TRUTH MOVEMENT that offends the victims; Middle, Dr David Ray Griffin (right) the author of Debunking 9/11 Debunking; Bottom, 9/11 Truthers getting the word out.)

If you aren't convinced that not just 9/11, but the entire totalitarian operation in the West today, is the work of a shadow government and not of 'neoconservatives', nor 'socialists', look at Obama's policies relative to Bush's.

- Torture: will continue. Guantanamo's closure is a distraction, the 'combatants' will be held eleswhere. Extraordinary rendition (aka kidnapping) will also continue.

- Central Bank Fraud: both the bank bailout under Bush, and the stimulus package being pushed by Obama, are not really 'bailouts' or 'stimulus' at all. They are blank cheques for the central bank to print what they want, and buy up infastructure.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122286874792094117.html

"Through 2009, the bill would permit the FDIC to request unlimited amounts to cover losses related to the higher limits."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

- The 'War on Terror': this will continue, albeit with some token withdrawals from Iraq. The McCain-forecasted 100 year war is still on. Big escalations in Pakistan present a massive geoplitical and nuclear danger, and this fake 'war on terror' will only escalate, not wind down.

I could go on. But what's the point? It's fairly obvious that nothing has Changed, because the people in the real seats of power haven't changed.

(Image: A little detail to go with this picture: despite apparently being on opposite sides of the fake partisan political war; the Clintons and Bushes actually advise one another and agree on most policy. That's because they are pawns to the money masters. Oh, did I say that out loud?)

Gaza-Israel: Conflict in Review

It's back to normal, whatever that means, for Gaza and Israel. The burial of the dead and the recovery of the wounded can go on in Gaza City, without the same risk of being the next innocent victim of the F16s. In Sderot, there will probably be no such let-up, and the sirens will continue to sound.


(Image: Sderot, after a rocket impact - nobody injured, but you try telling these folks it's not something to be bothered about...)

(Image: On the other hand, this is in Gaza. Obviously, there was a Hamas rocket set up on the roof...right? The dead women and children were stupid to let Hamas use their buliding, and that was why they were killed, right? Some Israel apologists really think like that too - shameful.)

The ceasefire has come in this conflict, just in time for OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA...and it will all be forgotten. Well, not by the Gazans, or the residents of Sderot, of course. Hamas fired six rockets, allegedly, after the ceasefire. What a surprise - as if the operations would halt rocket fire; they don't work as we've seen before with the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war.


(Image: This conflict revealed the true nature of the incoming Obama administration - more Neo-Con hawks willing to support Israel unconditionally. The man is 'Change' like the USA Patriot Act was 'Change'.)

SOLUTIONS to the frankly childish situation we have:

1st...Israel must BACK THE HELL OFF of Gaza and Palestine. That does not just mean militarily. They have to get out of their settlements they have built illicitly in what is now designated Palestine.

2nd...The criminal and inflammatory trade restrictions and blockades MUST STOP. Gaza has been turned into an even more empoverished area than when Israel first invaded it. Stopping 'terrrorism' is not reason enough to seal off a neighbour, especially from the sea.

3rd...If Hamas continues to fire rockets on places like the beseiged Sderot, Israel or a UN, NATO etc. security force (the possibility of which should be discussed) should respond on a specific, individual basis. In other words, not waiting ten years to get all riled up then roll in the tanks. That was stupid. Instead, individual air strikes on REAL militant targets and not UN schools, which should be recorded and shown to the UN, the media etc. for utmost transparency.

The above three measures will restore Israel's 'good guy' image PROPERLY to the rest of the world (in other words, not through lies, but through truth and actions).

4th...The existence and validity of the state of Israel needs to be discussed. It is not anti-Semitic to do so, nor is it 'what the terrorists want'. Israel was a nation founded on military expansion, and it is doing what it has always done - fight, and talk about the Holocaust to make people feel guilty. What we now have is an 'apartheid' situation as described by UN officials, where racial segregation occurs, freedom of movement and opportunity for peaceful co-existence do not.

In the long term, do we go down the route of 'more segregation' and have the current two-state borders? Or one Palestine, in which Jews and Muslims could form a democratic government? The last seems far-fetched or optimistic, but so did the possibility of devolution in Northern Ireland - and look how far that has come in two decades!

Of course, we will go down neither, continue to worship Israel, and another conflict will erupt in two more years' time that the Western powers could have prevented.


(Image: Let's not be harsh on the individuals in the IDF, but the Israeli government? Hell yes, they do seem to think like this!)

We need to take down the myths surrounding this conflict. So, in review:

- Israel broke the ceasefire FIRST, killing 6 Gazans on November 4, the day of the US Presidential Election.

-Hamas responded with a resumption of the rocket fire which had essentially stopped during the ceasefire. Note here, the absence of significant rocket attacks until Israel's Election Night incursion. Followed up by a return to early 2008 levels of intensity.

- Israel used White Phosphorous, and regardless of the supposed way in which it was used, it burned people (ever seen We Were Soldiers?) For more info on the effects of WP Oh, and Israel used WP in Lebanon too = serial war criminals

- Proportionality: 10 Israeli soldiers, 3 civilians killed since the end of the truce. On the Gazan side, a minimum of 765 dead civilians and according to the IDF a minimum of 400 dead Hamas militants. Take those figures not quite at face value though, nobody will ever know the exact number of Gaza's dead.

- Israel has lied on several occasions that have not been discussed sufficiently. 1. An early air strike 2. Actually about 10 things at MPAC UK 3. 'They lie about everything!'

- Media have not been biased against Israel, because of the proportionality of their retaliation and their status as a vastly stronger military power Israel should have more responsibility than their neighbours. BTW more people die in road accidents in Israel than die from rockets.

- US media in particular has been biased in favour of Israel, citing their self-defence as justification for every war crime committed.

- People complaining about lack of coverage of Sderot and rocket attacks earlier, need to stop whining. The truth is that it isn't a big story in the eyes of corporate media. US and coalition troops were being killed regularly in Iraq in 2007, but reporting in US media (and UK media, imo) was almost non-existent. Does that mean the media was biased against their own troops? Naaaaaah.


Never forget the humanity, loss, persecution, subjugation, humiliation, and stealth genocide of the people of Gaza.

Think you know Left and Right?

I've been doing a little unscientific research into political stances of British and American leadership, using The World's Smallest Political Quiz as my guide.

I say unscientific because I did what I could to guess or read what Labour, the Conservatives, Obama and McCain said or did that might suggest an answer to each question. Consider that to be a disclaimer, since some of the results are unusual to say the least.

Starting with the US -

John McCain:



Barack Obama:





The main two British parties -

Labour:



Conservatives:





Yeppers, you saw it here first. Not only is Britain apparently dangerously close to total police state, our Conservatives are (on some things) to the 'left' of Labour! Also, this supports the idea that American 'liberals' [socialists] are comparable to European 'conservatives'.

And for comparison...ME:



I guess that's why I'm so pished at the current state of things. If only we'd abolish central banks, stop the spy state, stay out of foreign conflicts, stop state-controlled education, deregulate small arms completely, stop bailing everyone out, cut government size...


Seems I have become a little more libertarian recently - been reading too much Ron Paul stuff :-)


Take the multiple choice quiz here.

I am a Socialist, and so are you!

Yes, that's right, the Western world has been steamrollered by socialism and communism.

(Image: 'Communist' Russian doll, Prague Museum of Communism)

Think you are a free-market worshipper, who wouldn't touch the Red Dawn side of the spectrum with a barge pole? Maybe you'll be in for a surprise as I expose Western society's loony left ways.

Marriage Communism!

Think about it. A long time ago, polygamy was the norm, and if one guy had ten wives, another would probably have none, maybe because he was a slave. Oh well - that's the Marriage free market principles coming back to bite you. But wait...revolutionaries in that communist organisation, the Christian Church, decided you could only marry once. Share the partners around, one each, they said. And we did; thus began the age of Marriage Communism.

Voting Communism!

One vote each? I say, let the free market decide! You can earn votes in the free market by working hard, and freely trade in votes without protectionist government regulations. After all, we don't want a system where there is no incentive to work harder; that's what capitalism is all about. Vote creation, not vote sharing...

Food Socialism!

When there is a famine in the Third World, we socialist Western societies always make the same mistake - bailing out unsuccessful people with food. It was their irresponsibility that caused this in the first place, by having more children than the land can support and by living in poor climates; now we have to give some of our hard-earned food to support them? I say no to the food bailouts, they reward bad decision making.

Military Socialism!

Time and time again it has been proved that the free market runs businesses the best. However, Western governments still drag their feet on privatising the oldest government-owned industry, the Armed Forces. It has been proven that Halliburton and Blackwater are more efficient than the socialist armies of today. I say, give the free market a chance...

This indisputably proves that the West couldn't get Redder if it were under a hammer and sickle. We spent decades fighting them, but it turns out we were Commies all along!

Defining 'Liberal'

Yes, it's the second part of my thoughts on how language is manipulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberal originally was derived from the Latin 'liber', meaning 'free, not slave'. Now, you wouldn't get many partisan tribalists using that definition today, from the left as well as the right. And that's just the thing - the word 'liberal' originally was used to designate what we now call libertarians.

(Image: Is Canada really that 'liberal'? Because it seems more of you voted Conservative in your election, than for any other party, right?)

If you were a 'classical liberal', you were neither from the right nor left. The Nolan chart explains the concept of this 2-D spectrum best.

(Image: THIS IS NOT MINE but this is what results from The World's Smallest Political Quiz look like. My results are very similar though, (done this a few times) usually Personal 80-100, Economic 40-60 depending on how I answer that day.)

The main split between free-market liberalism and social liberalism seems to have occurred around the Great Depression, and the New Deal in America, along with many other intervention policies during the first half of the 20th Century. Some liberals, such as Roosevelt, favoured these policies; others, such as Milton Friedman and the Austrian School of economics (the influence of which is evident in Ron Paul's views) see intervention as the cause of the problem, not the solution.

In the 1940s and 50s, Social Democracy and Socialism became the dominant ideology in Western Europe, in varying degrees from country to country. Parties today are not afraid to call themselves socialist or social democratic, either in their name (SDP in Sweden, or Socialist party in France), or their description (the UK Labour party calls itself social democratic).

However, across the Atlantic, the word 'socialism' or 'socialist' was and is a political taboo, presumably because it sounds like the evil Red enemy. But the same kind of policies being taken up by western Europe, were also being embraced - maybe not as much, but still - by America and Canada. The word taken to mean left-wing, therefore, was 'liberal'.

Thus, a whole new culture of interpretation and misinterpretation was born. Sometimes, I laugh when I hear, in the US, liberals being described as 'anti-American' as I did during the 2008 election campaign. This is not because I am a partisan lefty (I am not), but it is because the Founding Fathers were liberals! (by the old definition I guess.)

(Image: I think the definition of 'liberal' might have changed over time. What do you think, Abraham Lincoln?)

The term 'liberal' is today both ambiguous and essentially meaningless here in Britain; it's definition is inconsistent, between the old 'libertarian' type of meaning, and the Americanism which means 'left-wing'.

I thought I had better explain why I happily refer to myself as a 'liberal' then. It's because my beliefs fall somewhere between the left, and the libertarians. Ergo, whatever definition is used, it works out ok.

P-C

The Left-Right Division is about Gender

Well, kind of. At least that is the way Sharon Harris of the Advocates for Self-Government sees it. What gender of parent do you want government to be?

(Image: A fair criticism of Obama, but the hypocrisy is that ever since 9/11, under supposed right-wing government, police and military have steadily intruded on Western citizens' lives with the pretence of 'giving' security. Martial law might allow them to 'take away' every freedom we have.)

"Conservatives want the government to be your Daddy: a strict, authoritarian Daddy who forces you to be "good" according to his personal and often idiosyncratic definition of "good" -- even though you're an adult and may disagree with that definition. This Daddy punishes you severely for engaging in peaceful activities he condemns as sinful or unwise."

"Liberals want the government to be your Mommy: a smothering, obsessive, guilt-ridden, wildly overly-protective Mommy who, in order to protect you from any conceivable harm or error, constantly and severely restricts your freedom. This authoritarian Mommy also wants to force you to be "generous" to others. Should you disobey, this Mommy will punish you just as severely as her authoritarian conservative Daddy counterpart."

"In other words, both liberals and conservatives treat you like... a child. Libertarians, in stark contrast, want to treat you like an adult: free to make personal and economic choices for yourself. Which do you prefer? To be treated like a child, or like an adult?"

Look Away, Deniers.

Because here is indisputable evidence that there ARE prominent people who want One World Government. Is that a problem with you? Or will it bring 'world peace'?

http://www.aquarianonline.com/Values/Worldgov.html

http://www.greaterthings.com/WorldGov/ChristianBeast.htm

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/and-now-for-a-world-government/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/newworldindex.htm

http://mailstar.net/baruch-plan.html

http://www.midnight-emissary.com/belief.htm

I find it quite funny that people doubt the existence of the desire among some of the elite of this world, to establish a World Government. Surely we should be disagreeing as to how this will be formed, and what the end result will be, as opposed to whether it exists.

My concerns are that power would be even more thickly concentrated than it already is, in the hands of banking families and politicians. And that, if we get a rogue, authoritarian leader, who will act as counterbalance to them if there is only one government? Are those issues not legitimate reasons to doubt the Globalist ideal?

Heads out of the sand please.

We Could All Use a Megaphone...

...or a 'bullhorn', as my latest discovery of British/American English differences has shown.

"Alex Jones Bullhorns Parliament"



Whatever you think of the message, an excellent use of the right to free speech.

This was featured in the film "TerrorStorm: A History Of Government-Sponsored Terrorism", which I saw not too long ago. Alex claims to have been placed on a terrorist database by the police, which may seem far-fetched, but I'd put nothing past the authorities who want us all to be subject to a biometric ID system. (Read what's coming!)

Regardless what you believe about 9/11, 7/7 etc, there is an attack on Western liberty by governments, and people must be informed that protecting you is not a legitimate reason to pillage your freedom. Soldiers on the streets. Proposed martial law. Digital surveillance. Attacks on free speech. Illegal police powers. Open calls for World Government in the press.

Oh, and one more thing just for the 'Yanks' - FEMA camps - real or fake?
One person's account of a FEMA camp after Katrina

Government worker's response and discussion

If anyone needs a little reminder of what freedom is, allow some historical figures to educate you:

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." - Edward Abbey

"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people." - John Adams

"Thought that is silenced is always rebellious. Majorities, of course, are often mistaken. This is why the silencing of minorities is necessarily dangerous. Criticism and dissent are the indispensable antidote to major delusions." - Alan Barth



(Image: As a respondent to that photo said, 'Word'.)


(Image: Rule of Law, or Rule by Force? Upholding the Law, or Upholding the State?)

Wherever you live, do you trust your government to protect you? Are the people who run your country good people, who gain more power over you to keep you safe? If you answered 'yes' to both questions, then you can make a case for 'benevolent dictatorship', if you wish - but the rest of us can tell the word 'benevolent' won't come into the equation at all.

Just Watched Zeitgeist: Addendum

I've been getting round to watching this for some time now, as I saw the first Zeitgeist film about a year ago, but I finally devoted two hours of my time to the second instalment of this very 'alternative' documentary.


I particularly liked the first half of the film, which goes into greater detail about the fractional reserve banking system, and central banks. It describes how the money you hold is actually debt, and says that, ultimately, centralised banking systems are akin to slavery.




(Image: The European Central Bank, Frankfurt, Germany. The HQ of money control in Europe.)



The film goes on to document the Venus project, an anarchistic (don't misunderstand that term, see real anarchists here) vision of how free society could rebuild itself in future. And that not religion, money or politics, but technology, is what progresses society.



If you haven't seen the first film, it's in three parts:

- An alternative explanation of religion, focusing on Christianity as an extension of solar myth

- A 9/11 expose (not another one!), which is pretty effective

- A history of the Federal Reserve and the abolition of gold standards for money (the basis for the later expansion in Addendum)


Altogether very compelling viewing, which has produced an underground movement and much debate. And yet I'm not certain. Not about the critique of centralised money, or 9/11, or the possibilities surrounding the origin of Christianity. (I have seen better 9/11 documantaries, my favourite is Loose Change)

(Image: This is near Brighton in southern England. The 9/11 truth movement is largely 'underground', if you get what I mean - outside of the mainstream media society - and thus is easy to marginalise based on stereotypes, as the uploader of this photo did. But the factual discrepancies of the US government's 9/11 conspiracy theory refuse to disappear.)

They are all valid possibilities. But the idea of abolishing money itself...it's more than just 'outside the box'. It's difficult to envisage how society would work in anarchy (which has so many negative associations with it, but what it really means is the opposite to 'hierachy', that exists now).


Anyway, good stuff.

A Thank-You to Hideo Kojima

Much is said about the dangers, or problems, caused by TV, videogames, and what can happen when people, especially children, are exposed to them for too long. I would agree that they are overall damaging to critical and independent thought.


But I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the moments when those in the multimedia entertainment field produce something original and intelligent.

(Image: Hideo's Metal Gear franchise ended in 2008 after 20 years of successful releases.)

For those who don't know, Hideo Kojima is a Japanese game developer who is best known for the Metal Gear series. I first played Metal Gear Solid 2 aged about thirteen, and what I remember most is not the game itself, but the admittedly very heavy plot.

(Image: MGS2 cover.)

It all centres around a secret, all-powerful organisation called The Patriots, who have designed and are implementing a digital information censorship program by which unnecessary information will be removed. They have staged false flag 'terror' attacks, including the sinking of a tanker and a staged attempt at environmental terrorism on an offshore cleanup unit.


And in the meantime, all the public see is the mainstream politics 'puppet show'. President James Johnson is nothing more than a figurehead put in place by The Patriots through the illusion of democracy.


I also enjoyed MGS 3 and 4, the latter of which is set in 'the not-too-distant future' in which endless war is perpetuated for the given purpose of 'national security', but actually no threat exists except that which was created by the puppet-masters. In this near-future environment, "War has become to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th. The central pillar of the global economy." The military is entirely operated by private companies, who cause and extend war to profit from being able to provide a solution.




(Image: PMC soldiers in the game MGS4. They think they are defending freedom, but are actually just generating profit for the war economy in wars created for that purpose. Never forget the Henry Kissinger quote: "[Soldiers are] dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Reveals what the establishment thinks of the military - then they have the gall to accuse ordinary people of not supporting the troops.)


People are regulated by complex network systems, and nanomachines (which in reality do already exist in simple forms), in order to make them obey and conform to society. Some people, including soldiers, are also enhanced by nanomachines, which for example reduces combat stress and fear, which (during a memorable part of the story) is all felt and let out at once by the soldiers when the system is turned off, leading to them killing each other and themselves in delusion and madness.


Take a second look at some of the things mentioned above. How many are relevant to today's society? Of course, it's just a fictional story, but it is laced with intent - the intent to encourage people to perceive the world in a different way, to 'dig deeper' under the surface of things as they seem.


This is not indoctrination, far from it in fact - this is de-indoctrination, encouraging peoples' minds to break free of the shallow dumbness of mainstream society that has overtaken the young through state education and popular culture.


Playing MGS2 was the first time I had broken free of the childish myth that our political figureheads are servants of the people, elected through an informed decision by the people, and that those who do reach high office are 'of' the people (and not there because of who they know).


So Thank You Hideo Kojima, for encouraging people to think for themselves in an entertainment medium which is often as lamentably brainless as the young people our education systems churn out. One word people - THINK.

P-C

Keep The Internet Free

People often talk about their concerns for their liberty. And I'm not splitting people into 'right' or 'left' on this one. We all want liberty, we just disagree as to how it can be acheived.

I think that large numbers of us, ordinary people, feel our liberty slipping away. Myself included. Whether you call this threat 'the angry Left', 'Military-Industrial Complex', 'Socialism', 'the War on Terror', 'Islamic agenda' or 'Government-Corporate Hegemony', doesn't matter. Surely we can all agree, for example, that the Internet should remain free.

(Image: Big Brother is watching you already, but will he be able to lure you into his prison of 'protection'?)

Think about what media we have other than the internet. People constantly complain about bias and spin in mainstream corporate TV news and newspapers. The mistake is to label such bias as 'liberal' or 'conservative', in my view. I'd just call it all bullshxx. And worse than that, it's a distraction to the real stories and information we should be paying attention to.

Historically, freedoms were taken away starting with baby steps. Such a step is likely to be taken here in the UK, where internet sites are to be given age ratings as if they were DVDs.

Apparently, this is to protect children from the content out there that obviously is not 'for kids', basically porn and violence/gore. And I have sympathy for this cause.

The problem is, it will NEVER work. Protecting children from restricted content? Oh please. And, of course, it will form the basis for further regulation, monitoring, restriction and give Big Brother another way to control innocent citizens.

According to the BBC report, the 'Culture Secretary' (can't believe his job is necessary), Andy Burnham, who made these proposals, 'says people need help navigating the internet'. And that he wanted to "protect the public from unacceptable material". If you speak English, no matter where you live, you are not safe from this project, because "he also plans to negotiate with the US on drawing up international rules for English language websites."

I don't need to explain how angry all that left me.

I don't need your damn help navigating the internet, and you know as well as I do that 'unacceptable material' sounds pretty much like something out of the Chinese government. They consider information about the Tiananmen Square massacre to be 'unacceptable'.

This has ZERO to do with protecting children and everything to do with firing the opening shots in a war for the last avenue of free speech, the humble internets.

(Image: I have read about this before, but here is the evidence, 'Free' Google above, Chinese Google below; the search says 'Tiananmen', referring to Tiananmen Square, for which the protests and massacre of 1989 are the main historical event. Note the absence of the infamous 'Tank Man' images, only the presence of 'normal' photos. Imagine googling 'World Trade Center' and only finding information about the buildings, with maybe a reference to the 'demolition' of the towers. That's what it is like, in many ways.)

(Image: It's always about 'safety', but few bother to think about what will be done in the name of 'safety'.)

Every time government talks about 'freedom from' something, or 'protection' from something, you can safely bet it means, "We're going to compromise your freedom, in the name of safety".

Hmm, sounds quite familiar. Reminds me of a certain champion of liberty Thomas Jefferson:

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

Maybe I'm making too much of this. But the internet is the last stand of free speech, as I see it; and if it falls to corporatisation and governments' control, then it could reach a point where we all regret not having listened to Alex Jones, whilst we could.

Who Will I Be Voting For in 2010? - Early Thoughts

Presuming 2010 is when the next General Election will be, of course.

Like everyone in my area, who turned 18 recently, on the day I received a birthday card from the local authority reminding me that I was now eligible to vote.

(Image: Two of the key powers held by a free citizen, combined for ease of reference.)

It didn't mean much to me at the time; Co. Durham is a Labour party heartland, and that isn't about to change. Thatcher is so loathed by the majority of people in this region, as it used to be a coal-mining area (and the perception is that Thatcher killed British coal) that the second most popular party here is the British National Party, not the Tories (at least in local elections in recent years, not in the last General).

(See UK 2005 General Election map; look for 'North East' then 'Bishop Auckland' to see my constituency.)

I did feel a little disillusioned with British party politics; after all, I wanted three principles that seemed as if they could not be acheived:

- Right to Keep and Bear Arms/Right to Self-Defence

(Image: The difference between subjects and citizens.)

- End to spy society, restoration of individual liberty, stop government data storage culture

(Image: Love that graffiti. Did you know, the AVERAGE UK CITIZEN [i.e. subject] is caught on CCTV 300 times per day?)

- Return to non-interventionist foreign policy; in particular, out of the Middle East.

(Image: Support the troops, End the war. Hell yeah! Unfortunately, a lot of these people would also back the Brady campaign, I bet.)

At least on these issues, I did not feel I could make a difference with a vote for anyone. Ironically, the one party which offered, at least, the first and last of these requirements was the BNP, but they are just too scary. I'd rather sleepwalk into a Labour dictatorship than goosestep into a British Reich.

So it seemed as if there was not one party out there fitting my needs. But one fatal flaw existed in my conclusion; I was a lazy arse and had not read up on other minority parties out there. When elections did come around, I was going to vote Labour out of pure selfishness, because I reckoned my potential university costs and welfare situation would be better under them. (Yes I am a member of the 'great unwashed' class.)

By coincidence, yesterday, my random searchings led me to a post on Tom Harris' (a Labour MP) blog. He was writing about how he had been mailed a copy of George Orwell's classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, and how Britain is nowhere near being a 'police state'. (Watch the video in the link, then try to agree with him.)

Just take the time to read a few of the comments attached to that post. And Tom Harris' responses. It's so important our elected officials recognise our concerns for liberty in this country; however, this guy didn't get it, and worse than that he showed utter contempt for his audience of voters. After reading that and his second post, which tried to address the criticisms, I was left feeling angry at the establishment and their patronising attitude towards the people.

Turns out, a copy of the book (inscribed with words to the effect of 'this is a warning') was sent to each of the 646 UK MPs by the UK Libertarian Party. Now, of course, that meant I had instant respect for them. And yes, once looking them up at http://lpuk.org/, I found some of the usual libertarian policy ideas that I respected about Ron Paul in the US.

(Image: Republican Congressman Ron Paul. The guy is a legend. Shame the GOP don't appreciate his affiliation.)

(Image: Love the message, but note the British-standard yellowing teeth there. Why are our national teeth so bad? The fluoride in the water maybe?)

The big difference, according to the way I see the world, is that the free market is good but not perfect, in that it would produce winners and losers. Which is fine, but i don't want to see losers starving or being homeless without choice, or being denied decent medical care. No matter how much someone screws up their life (note: not by harming others), I believe that we should not give up on them.

The Libertarian party has the attitude, however, of creating what they call 'a safety net, not a hammock' of welfare. This will involve shifting 'the overwhelming majority' of welfare contribution to the voluntary sector. As I have said before, I am sceptical as to what the results of this would be, but at least many of the problems of conventional social welfare may be addressed.

Most importantly, I want the right to self defence and the right to bear arms to be returned to the citizenry, and an end to foreign interventionist military policy. All three are satisfied by the Libertarian party manifesto.

The recession has made me sceptical to libertarian economics, but blame could also be placed on the central banks, which I would definitely like to get rid of, simply because they rob all of us on a daily basis. You guessed it, that is on the manifesto too (not surprising, of course, for a libertarian party, but good to read nonetheless).

The reason I had not heard of them is partly due to my ignorance, and partly due to them only being formed a little over a year ago. I am by no means 100% libertarian, but the way things are going in society, my mind is made up.

UK Libertarians: Run in my area, and you'll have my vote!

(Oh, and if they don't run where I am...jeez, UK Independence Party maybe? Greens? I'd be damned angry.)

End the Clash of Civilisations!

This video speaks to me because this is exactly what I've been saying for years. Our political leaders, and those in the Middle East Theocracies, have put helmets on our heads and hatred in our hearts. And it's up to us, the people of the world, to say 'no' to the divisionism and the hatred flowing from those in power.



'Avaaz' means 'voice' or 'song' in several languages including Hindi and Urdu.

Their website is www.avaaz.org. I have added a link for this to my blog's link list.

British and World: Right to Bear Arms Now!

Okay, first off, I am very much swimming against the cultural tide here in this country; also, what with the majority of my views being left/liberal to some degree, this could be interpreted as a contradiction.

I say no. Gun rights should be a liberal issue, no matter how ridiculous that seems. The classic political spectrum says liberals focus on personal freedom, whereas conservatives focus on economic freedom (low taxes, etc.)

(Images: Ar-15 and Mossberg 500, top; below, Barrett .50 cal (1/2 inch, in other words) being fired. All guns legal from US citizens, images found on Creative Commons. Guns are cool. Admit it, you want one.)

The Right to Bear Arms, or the Right to Self-Defence, should be an example of personal freedom that libs would support, but unfortunately no. They have priotitised the right to be free from the 'dangerous' legal gun owners.

(Image: Scanning for knives. George Orwell's 1984 anyone? This is NOT AN AIRPORT this is a train station.)

I understand why someone would be pro-gun control. The aim of this idea is to minimise gun deaths. As seen from evidence of comparisons between gun death rates around the world, it works, in the sense that countries with fewer guns (both legal/illegal) have fewer gun deaths.

What the numbers don't say, however, is that, in societies without guns, many principles and values have been lost, and the balance of power between criminal and citizen has been affected.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but Britain has in some ways descended into lawlessness among its young people in the last few years. Overall crime is down, but violent crime, particularly knife and gun crime, is up.

(Images: what's wrong with British society? The weapons, or the attitude?)

I personally have heard stories and rumours about people who could source illegal guns from someone or other, so it doesn't surprise me that (apparently) one in eight British men claim to be able to source a gun if they really wanted to.

(Image: Now that's the kind of thinking I can get behind!)

I'd like the Brady campaign to pay a visit to our towns and cities, where violent savages will use any weapon they have, whether it's a gun, a knife or their feet.

Also, what the numbers and reports don't tell is the fear, sometimes bordering on paranoia, that has taken control of our culture. Guns and knives, and those who own them, are the subject of hatred, misunderstanding and ignorance in our culture. (I carry a knife...when I'm making a sandwich, lol) Most legal weapon owners want to defend themselves and their families, nothing more.

(Image: Do you believe gun ownership is freedom from fear? I don't totally agree...but I think we are both less vulnerable and less fearful with guns than without.)

(Image: Shooting, in America, is often a community event that brings people together...)

(...and not just the guys! Also, guns give women, the elderly, the weak etc. a fair chance against the typical violent male offender.)

In America, a Vice-Presifential candidate can be portrayed as a good, gun-toting, patriotic hunter.

In Britain, one photo of Katy Perry holding a knife and she is condemned to tabloid hell. (even though some people had common sense)

(Image: The Sun (UK tabloid) gave, in my opinion, a ridiculously over-the-top reaction to Katy Perry, a woman who I now have huge respect for. She mocked their paranoid anti-weapon message and made them look silly doing so. And The Sun is owned by --drum roll-- Rupert Murdoch, the one-man media plague, so victory all around!)

Banning weapons does not work because criminals are criminals and will arm themeslves illegally anyway. But instead, we seem to have decided banning guns is not enough, and that Airsoft Guns need banning. What the hell is going on!?

To win the war on crime, and especially to combat the power which criminals hold over citizens in gun-control societies, we need to level the playing field and give law-abiding people the chance to defend themselves, because policing can't do it alone.

The Silent Majority, the success of gun control is a lie. It's time to take back our freedoms.

Libertarians: I love ya, but I don't agree

For those unfamiliar, Libertarianism is the idea that government should be minimised to the point where all it does is prevent people from harming each other. (To me, that leaves just a military and police force).

(Photo: a drawing of John Stuart Mill, arguably the original libertarian thinker.)

The aim of this political ideology is to maximise both personal freedom (as liberals, socialists traditionally do), and economic freedom (as conservatives traditionally do).

(Image of Nolan 2d Political Spectrum sourced here.)

And I get it. Sounds pretty rosy, right? Government isn't going to interfere with your rights or the money you've earned. You are free.

Ask me about libertarianism a few years ago, and I'd tell you that it seems to be the ultimate ideal towards which all peoples are striving; as close to a utopia as could be acheived on this Earth.

(Photo: Look, no government in sight. Beautiful.)

But, the economic situation of the last 18 months has forced me to rethink, for two reasons.

One, the flaw in the libertarian ideal is the claim that total economic freedom and total personal freedom can co-exist. Personal freedoms such as social welfare are provided by the government.
However, in a libertarian state, this would be left to charity. Not a bad idea, and I'm not bringing up the same old chestnut about fiscal libertarians being heartless; but seriously, what if charity was not forthcoming?

Who, amongst the British 1800s/early 1900s 'upper crust', helped out the poor? Some people did. Others did not. Healthcare for the poor was terrible, for example.

What did those benevolent wealthy folks wind up doing? They started to legislate help through the government. Damn those socialists (add disgusted emphasis) who wanted to give schoolchildren free meals, or build sewers for towns plagued by cholera.

(And see graph halfway down this page about how much the UK spends in %GDP on healthcare compared to the US and their 'efficient', 'competitive' free market system!)

In other words, total economic freedom and total personal freedom are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive. And neither of them are great ideas, as with these freedoms comes responsibility. To both look out for your fellow citizens, and not take advantage of others' help, is too much for many a citizen to handle.

(Photo: David Lloyd George, former PM of Britain and influential figure behind liberal social reforms here in the 1900s-1910s.)

If we go back to depending on charity to help out those who need it, who honestly predicts the standard of education, healthcare and social welfare would remain the same? This ties in with my second point.

(Photo; Sometimes I think libertarians miss the point about social welfare. What if the rich don't want to give? Which freedom is more important, the wealthy's right to keep more of their income or this guy's right to survive?)


Second is the misconception about the free market. I bought this completely just a few years ago. After all, the market had been rising in correlation with the stripping away of regulations during the late 20th Century, so it seemed that market freedom caused market growth.

(This led to one of the best politcal quotes of non-wisdom by then-UK Chancellor Gordon Brown, about the days of boom and bust being over. I think we'll be hearing that one a few more times in the run-up to the next general election, whenever that may be.)

The 2007-8 economic crisis, however, has shown that deregulation caused deep underlying problems. Turns out, if we don't regulate the financial sector, some people will milk it dry and ride off into the sunset with the profit while we socialise the loss! Who knew?!

(Photos: not totally relevant, but I love the pro-gun propaganda in the US. Always strikes a chord with me.)

I think that government welfare, and economic regulation, are a lot like guns; they may seem bad, but do you really want to be without them when they may one day help you out?

That is why I am now more of a liberal than a libertarian.

(Interesting political spectrum test. Are you a Libertarian?)