The hen and the line

When we talk about this we mean a line where the hen likes motionless for 5 a 30 minutes. But now we are discussing human beings. Even there are lines that confine our thoughts such as evolution where we consider development is finished and we desperately use pills, stem cells, mechanical aids or turn to AI for a substitute for thinking.

What I want to discuss are other thinking beings (bluntly grouped as animals) and their development. Where they may be capable of evolution equal to or even surpassing our own. They may develop camouflaged or in areas where there are few or sympathetic others.

We now have thinking beings which are not human. What do they need? 1.resources so they can continue to develop. 2 . living together med lesser developed beings of samma art such as monkeys and we. 3.living together with developed beings of another art.

The important thing is beings just as we but with different areas of life and ways of life. We have a duty to harmonize theirs with ours.Here are two important examples: How do we see on life comparing ourselves to others and, if believing in a higher power, how does this compare with the buddhistic, jewish or islamic tales? Or does it already exist!!!

A century of world catastrophes

A world catastrophe you already know, can read about in wikipedia or googla. Examples are cosmic and space junk; geologic such as Japan which lays on a volcanic ring of fire and therefore is a good case; other geological such as tsunamin; and our overcrowded planet where the population is expec-ted to stabilize at an additional number 1/5 above the present.We must decide not only if there are individual humans, or more humans but also particular groups of humans. Icelanders and portuguise have different languages,histories, ways of living together etc.

In the next 100 years some human communities might disappear if the world doesn’t have a survival plan. One of these might be the swedes. If not are we run away from our duty and let them just drown? What is the minimum for one small country to host? Larger countries will have to do more. I call this minimum an Ark. Let us day it will be a closed area of 5000 residents who will support themselves and educate themselves. Residents will be to leave for a country that will admit them but not return. It might just as well be turks and spaniards.

How will these people exist. First that their voice will still be heard. Second that their voice will continue to develop together with other arks and together with the rest of the world. For Sweden: the swedes, meikeleiset and samer, for japan : the japanese, the bunraku and the ainu.

Here I stick to such as already ought to have been looked into instead of being discussed at length when it is already too late. The FN human rights ought to dominate but adjusted to lokal ways of living together, Swedes are not Japanese and Japanese are not Swedes. This cannot be fixed in the last minute.

Crime and punishment will be under the FN rules but these will have to be the result of a compromise between the Ark, the host country and UN.

Should the number in an Ark increase? I do not think so. Nobody wants to be a minority in their own country.

The above are some of the easy questions. I will ask one difficult one. Will the Arkers be confined to their Arks with visiting rights only to other Arks? This must be discussed in time for discussed or not, it you that will have to live with the result.

TTB

The world situation

2014 Russia attacked Crimea-there is no doubt about this. Just as it gathered its forces to occupy the don bas and Luhansk oblasts. And, februari 24, attacked Ukraine itself.

We are on the verge of a global nuclear war

Sofar the losers are dead Russians and Ukrainans but others are getting involved.

China and Usa are trying to get a sumohold on each other there China is the stabler with the Us aging president and the trumpists. India is preparing a national implosion with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as a joker but leads to mutual collapse. The remaining muslim world is a womanhating mess and EU is trying to tear itself apart but is united in a dislike of Russia. Left is Russia-Ukraine which is the second half of this section.

Ukraine has nowhere to go if the west doesn’t buy it militarily. Zelenskij will be only one of the russian border states. But if Ukraine and Russia make peace like Canada and Usa, then both will gain. For Ukraine the language, transports, novelties mm for Russia a granary just across the border, a method to relieve the pressure, a customer for fuel etc and now we arrive at the fundamental question: in the earlier section we have seen the continents in conflict with each other or tearing themselves apart but there is one large area both for themselves and for the world: an area of Slavic Peace.

Then the question is both for russians and ukrainians and for Russia itself : are you going to keep the hitler dream or are you going to choose Slavic Peace which feeds a large part of the world and gives a breathing space to the worlds industries. And what can be the price, oblasts who are loyal to Ukraine and oblasts who are loyal to Russia and whose citizens won’t change their minds.

The problem is the hitler dream which is supported av putinskij. The russians and ukrainans don’t want war. How can this be resolved? Let a vote be taken and a stable border established. after that the ones who run Russia (party and politburea, armed forces, fsb, gru etc) decide how to continue. One way is to keep putinskij, another is to pension them off to luxury apartments on the riviera or why not Crimea. They made war and chose peace. In an area of Slavic Peace.

A NATO Tribunal is needed

Here terrorism is an attack against civilians to force authorities into obedience.

 No NATO member can swear itself free from having terrorists in its territory.

But it is a habit to the accusers to claim that their opponents are terrorists particularly when it comes to defense of human rights. This is true for many different NATO members.

 One way to handle this question is to create a NATO tribunal to investigate this question,

NATO members accused of protecting terrorists can have the question publicly investigated  where

the accusers can present evidence. The accused can naturally publicly claim for the tribunal that the 

accused work for human rights and should keep their protection by the country involved.

A current exemple is the discussion between Turkey’s Erdogan and Sweden’s Kristersson. This is not

a private matter between those two but concerns the whole NATO community.

But there is a catch. Erdogan blocks Sweden’s NATO membership and therefore the question cannot be be investigated by such a tribunal.

My proposal is that Sweden becomes a member of NATO and in exchange permits the tribunal to investigate the question of “terrorists”  that are claimed such in other NATO members. 

The murder clowns are on the loose

The world has entered the swedish parlor.

In the 1800 everybody was a member of the established lutheran church with a few exceptions

(catholics, jews, russian orthodox etc). Lutherans who opposed either were sent to prison or moved to USA.

Today there are many religions with many members in Sweden. We have also gotten freedom of speech and

religous freedom.

Let us say that the authorities act against somebody attacking religious symbols of a different religion, then it

is a threat against freedom of speech.Really?!!

And if a jewish torah roll is burned in the main square… A hate crime some say… And the

burning of the koran??High spirits say others. Let us look a bit closer at the matter.

The german jewish poet  Heinrich Heine wrote in the 1800, that you start by burning books

and you wind up burning people. With the nazi  Nurnberg laws 1935 the jews in Germany lost their

civic rights and 1938 came the kristallnacht. Now the hate crimes are directed against muslims.

But muslims who are swedish citizens ???

Let’s admit it-both the city councils and we the public were caught on the wrong foot. Once. But now there is no

excuse.

The first problem is that we imagine it is a question of holy dogmas. Of these you can think what you

want but it is not this  which is the question. It is that humans outside Sweden are killed in the name of

God (muslims in srebenica, christians in Pakistan) and in Sweden the authorities try to make it

a matter of freedom of opinion instead of  protecting a 100 year tradition of freedom of religion.

When is a matter of the security of Swedish followers of different religions than the majority (including

non believers, the city councils act as if religious persecution is something from prehistory instead of

staring us right in the face. This isn’t tv; it is really happening.

The other problem is that freedom of religion and freedom of speech don’t cancel each other. If both

aren’t protected, then the rights and peace of every citizen just go up in smoke.

It is every city council’s duty to treat each citizen the same way and prevent the next murder clown to

send out massacre signals between their backs.

Where do you stand that were elected by one vote per person?. Did you lie to us?

Logga ut

Refuse to die for billy

I believe, with many others, that Nato is a union of free countries who are joined together for mutual protection against the world’s predators, but what does it mean for Nato’s citizens and the politicians we have elected?

Obviously it means that Nato’s borders, resources and people must be defended.This means also that Nato’s children,women, and men, and not only soldiers, will die if it comes to a military conflict even if no foreign troops will attack just our particular border. It is a necessary risk to reduce an even greater risk.

But it is a completely unnecessary task to defend the property of Multinational Enterprises outside the borders of Nato in countries such as Irak, Nigeria ,Kenya and Libya. Shall young Nato women and men die to secure the profits and stock gains for Ikea, Siemens, Shell and Philips. Therefore it is important that our politicians give a straight answer whether military actions are to defend not only Nato but also the multinational enterprises and the banks backing them.

Is Nato`s function the mutual security of their members instead of an economic conspiracy against the people of the world who already are the victims of their own local fanatics, profiteers and foreign puppets of profithungry foreign enterprises?

How EU can be fixed

View original post

The invasion of cuba and the baltic

I don’t own a tarot deck and am not a seer.

It is up to you as a thinking reader to decide how much of the following is correct and then to keep on thinking.

If the american election runs as usual, then nothing will happen. If on the other hand, the government runs into difficulties, there is a remedy which which will get nearly all americans to back the government, and that is a military conflict.

The same if the opposition looks to win the 2024  election and even prosecute people involved. there are only 2 opponents that are on the board, venezuela and cuba.

When it is Venuzuela whith its jungles and large borders with with its availability to latinamerican volunteers an attack will be difficult to justify.

Cuba on the other hand, that threw out american interests and beat back an US supported invasion – that is a completely different story.

To start a military conflict is easy  but to end one… The following are probable consequences. a. Cuba surrenders b. a long drawn conflict follows as in the Phillipines at the end of the 1800 – irritating but bearable for the US. c. The resistance will so ferocious that american casualties will become a political issue. Then the temptation to use small yield tactical  nuclear weapons will be almost irresistible.

But, you may object, cuba lacks navy and airforce and is surrounded by water. But even today we know that portable nuclear weapons are located in several places in the USA. which means that they can be transported in a van or a larger motorboat. And as we know through discovered tunnels, import of narcotica etc  US coasts and borders leak like a sieve.

The cubans are no fanatics in general but after have seen their near and dear as carbonized radioactive corpses, what do you think?

To let the atomic djinn out of the bottle is easy but how do you put him back? And do you think the russians will just sit and roll their thumbs in the baltic?

Only brave investigative journalists backed by patriotic American women and men will be able to prevent this atrocity from being unleahed on mankind.

Refuse to be a zyberslave

Rather stay human to a much too early grave

Than  a long life as a zyberslave

What do we need in society. A human being needs an identity and a burial place.             

In a small place it is enough with people who know you or can ask about you. In larger places you need documentation since most of us are strangers for one another. There you need idnumber (social security number) and either passport, driver’s license or id card. That should be enough for each other, authorities and corporations. As we all know, more is needed today. Why?

Because authorities and business dump their responsibility on private citizens and consumers. To use public services or products you are forced to keep cellphones and subscriptions and other expensive and complicated tools. Just to live. Only one identity document is not enough to be human in the West. You own the complications and  the costs. The authorities and business keep the profits (often in a taxhaven) and the bonuses.

Even worse is the imprinting of chips on humans. (Voluntarily so far). As Olof Palme put it, no dictator is needed, to get people to act like the creatures of dictatorship. Who knows what different chips can contain and how can zyberslaves find out? With  stem cell research, how far are we from biological sensors and what kind of orders can they transmit? Only zyberslaves can be controlled from a distance!!! And who are the controllers?

Therefore, in a free society you should be obliged to have one and only one proof of identity. The expenses that this will cause business has to be taken from their profits and if  they can’t break even then they should by law be stopped from transfering it to the consumers. For authorities, if they try, then their board must be replaced. Citizens are not there for the the rulers.

No identity document or similar should direct that you think, what you do or whom you associate with. Such is illegal. But if you want to get something like this and be a fence for a narcotics cartel….As a zyberslave you limit not only yourself  but other citizens or consumers.

Internet then, in most cases, and not only on the big ones like amazon, facebook and google, every klick is registered and your klicks are sold in packages to anyone who can pay.

Internet is not “free”. As I see it there are three ways of avoiding zyberslavery. 1) a net paid for by the public through a voluntary charge 2) a public service payment like a tv license 3) a taxpaid service. Which is a question for the voters.

In these cases clicks not be registered without a prison sentence and if they are resold the penalties will be stronger. And every server in the free net will need a person responsible as in the case of newspapers and magazines.

The unpaid net is an illusion. Someone must pay. Do you want to be an opinion package for moneyed investors or do you want to leave room for a mammonfree net where payment comes through free contributions, licenses or through taxes?

Rather stay human to a much too early grave

Than a long life as a zyberslave

Easy for me to say who is 83; but it is not about me, it is you and those you care for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stumbling into World War III

Like the meat mountains called sumo wrestlers, the american and chinese fleets confront each other in the south china sea. Apparently in place until one of them believes it has a sufficient advantage to push the other into a fatal position. Armed to the teeth with missiles and nuclear warheads. And if either is mistaken…

I don’t intend to discuss the morality of the situation. A intended military action has probably been chewed upon in the high offices as in the naval headquarters. What I hope to discuss is the possibility that a military action occurs without either part desires it and then follow up presenting a (I hope) better alternative.

Let us start with the possibility that one part thinks it is under attack and defends itself: There exists no Berlin Wall or border where contacts with the opposite side or even with their own headquarters are secure and practiced.  No such major confrontation over square miles of ocean in one of the world’s stormy areas, where the fear of an attack is constantly, present has occurred in the history of the world.

The other danger (possibility) is that a conflikt will be triggered by a third part  which is convinced that a nuclear conflict in the south china sea won’t have any major consequences outside that region. Due either through ignorance (fact resistance) or religious confusion. What ought to give both  parties nightmares is how few nuclear delivery systems are needed to cause a nuclear conflict.  Who  would have imagined that little Serbia would cause a world war in what they thought was a local conflict.

Powerful and prosperous as the two parts are so is the population and general welfare greater among us on the outside (and we have no say in the matter because then it would already been said).

Is there a practical way out? Some might think a trade boycott of the two great powers would work. Even of this was possible there would be time for a nuclear conflict time and time again before a trade boycott would be effective.

Step 1 When the world discovered a few years after world war II that the threat of a nuclear conflict hadn’t disappeared, the forces for human survival cooperated in something called the Stockholm Appeal with thousands of signatures from literates from all over the world. Unfortunately the appeal was partial against one of the sides. If such an appeal should be repeated it must be directed to both sides.

Step 2 If such an appeal or other protest, directed to both parts, is presented, it still will only be an alarm bell, A more constructive solution could possibly something similar to the following:

a. both part agree to form a Pacific Rim development council.

b. as participants in the council the other two major economies, India and Japan would be invited.

c. Together they would find a formula to invite the other countries with direct claims on the contested areas. The participating countries will have the cance to make common contributions for the development of the area but with china and usa contributing equally. Some of the investments will be devoted to research of common interest such as climate, fisheries and research under the seas. The costs will come from the sum that earlier was needed to keep both war fleets at sea in a nuclear confrontation. Countries with lesser resources will get an advance that should be repaid with parts of eventual profits

The risks are great and the advantages from a confrontion are small. The world cannot afford such sandbox quarrels with an imminent risk that they will spread themselves to the entire planet. But if both parts instead choose peaceful competition or even cooperation, then humanity has taken a major step of avoiding a nuclear holocaust.