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

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. 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

The police has duties but so does the public

Introduction

The police does not decide what they should do; the public does through its authorities and how they treat the police and the police officer (not exactly the same thing). In some miniblogs I hope to show that this is not really accurate.

Miniblog 1: How the police through its prejudices shares its monopoly of violence with organized crime.

All too many on the police force think it is good if some kill each other in gang fights because that way we don’t have to deal with them. Others feel that is was only a hooker that got it. She chose to wind up there.

Why is this wrong and not only wrong but a thorough misunderstanding of the duty of the police?

Crime is a. that which courts react severely against. b. that which the police has a duty to act against c. that which lies in a gray area (where it is the duty of the police to use their experience and judgment). 

Murder and bodily harm of prostitutes or gang fights are serious matters whatever your moral opinions of the matter. But morality aside there is something that is just as important. In most countries, except in times of military conflict, it is decided that only the police are allowed to use violence and nobody else. Then there are two things to think about.

First, how does this allow policemen and even some police chiefs ignore crimes of violence against some or in some areas? Do we have two police forces, the police and the underworld? Don´t they realize that  organized crime first targets the weak and then expands their activities.

Second organized crime needs an undisturbed cash flow. The police neither can nor should react against every crime. But if the police concentrates to investigate every murder or major destructive activity (such as pyromania) then these are moved from the gray area to the center of the stage and the cash flow for organized crime dries up which leads to conflict and disappointment for their members. Instead other, less severe crimes such as gambling and fraud  are moved into the gray area and fewer members of the public need to live out their lives in fear. That means also that the underworld shares its information with the police when some independent does something since the cash flow still dries up when the police investigates even if organized crime is not involved in the crime. So it then helps the police with their investigations to protect their cash flow.

Why the police are more vulnerable than others and therefore protect policemen who commit crimes.

Miniblog 2: This was covered by jan guillou in his 1979 book Reporter and 40 years has passed without anything being done. In the following the  interpretation is my own and Guillou has no responsibility for its content.

Many work, at least partly, under difficult conditions where it is easy to lose faith in the public. The police are different because they meet human evil and degradation every day at the risk of their lives. This wears on the soul and can sometimes lead to the police doing something criminal.

I don’t suggest any special favors from the court system. But what happens when they have done their time. Are they trained for anything except to be police – they therefore get  a double punishment and who would employ them. A special rehabilitation agancy should exist for the training and placement of convicted police officers and their placement, excepting such jobs that involve violence such as security firms and private investigations. But it not enough, as is the custom today, to establish an agency where the right action is planned but with budget cuts and lack of staff the agency would be a bluff. Rehabilitation must be a right for these public servants on the frontline and enable then to sue the agency (with free legal aid) for delayed or missing rehabilitation just as the government can be sued for missing pensions. Otherwise the agency would just be a fraud on the public.

Why police get worn out and what can be done about that.

Miniblog 3: >Every policeman meets human misery daily. Even if they don´t get touched in a vulnerable area so they commit crimes, it is easy to get worn down due to constant risks and fear for their family. To be a policeman should not be a life sentence.

I therefore propose a yearlong salaried break from work every 10 years.  The rate at which this will be introduced and how much of the salary they get depends on the budget. You have to account for the training of new inexperienced police since some on the break won’t return. However most will return and we will have a better police force as a benefit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom of speech, the false freedom and the hidden freedom.

What is meant in the west by freedom of expression, generally known as freedom of speech, is generally known. As a rough idea we can take the renaissance with names as Erasmus of Rotterdam,Galileo and Montaigne.  The rights have been won through centuries of struggle till today. Meanwhile they have been  changed, improved  and subverted.

I will start with the limitations most of us accept today.

Libel – you are not allowed to defame somebody by unfactual  statements.

Hate crimes – spoken or written. Here there is still a gray zone but in general racist symbols, speech or writings are not tolerated

Historical falsifications – denial of documented past atrocities such as the genocide of armenians or the holocaust are allowed sometimes.  The matter is discussed.

In general in Sweden you may say anything about anybody, however an open discussion about islam or its founder is impossible in practice.

Does this mean that freedom of speech is otherwise unlimited. Taking some thought this is shown to be wrong.

Limitations are usually based on the principle that everybody has the right to express themselves, undisturbed. You cannot enter a church and talk about whatever or in a closed meeting or disturb a  public meeting. You cannot sing at a public meeting  to interrupt a speaker etc.

By these limits you can see the outline of the hidden freedom.

But first, freedom of speech as a thought is a human right for the individual or groups of individuals to talk to  other individuals but is has been counterfeited,

The false freedom of speech is that money or power  gives someone more right to  present opinions or goods. Here you have taken way freedom of speech for the individuals to drown it in the loudspeaker of wealth. You are using the nature of freedom of speech to strangle freedom of speech. Neither mcdonald, volvo or  lotto are individuals.

Now let us try to give the hidden freedom a name. I suggest freedom from impression. That nobody must receive impressions that somebody else chooses. Here, as with freedom of speech, there are limits. Freedom from impression is not a bar to the free association between individuals  but to give individuals the ability to resist Power and Money’s obvious (obvious!!) priority . It  should not hinder the Contact between authorities and Citizens but can be tested from case to case to distinguish propaganda from information.

It is not meant to hinder individuals or groups of individuals from letting the public know their opinions (protected by freedom of speech). But with this and similar limits freedom from impressions is for one’s self  to decide what impressions to receive.

As an exempel how freedom from impression could appear. On the sidewalk there would only be a sign for what kind of business it is such as Ikea, Walmart, Ford. Inside, invisible from the street, the presentation would be as we  are used to.  Breaking these rules would lead to fines, Radio and Tv commercials only to those who clearly want it. Freedom from impressions, just as freedom of speech, couldn’t be given away. As a trial, impression free buildings or areas could be established. The reaction of the business community would give clearer idea of this freedom.

You may, hopefully find better exemples.

As for freedom from impressions, we have still 500 years to make up. We find it difficult just to imagine  what it is. It is considered as a matter of course that the individual is a funnel where Money and Power can pour anything they like. And what do you as an isolated individual have to resist.

You may feel the freedom from impressions is an ivory Tower Construction instead of a protection for free thoughts for individuals. That your feelings and opinions are trade goods although you haven’t offered them to anybody. Keep on that way and offer yourself and those following you to the  Cages  of Money and Power.

 
   

 

 

 

Terrorism: their and our

Instead of writing a final word on terrorism of today, I am trying to define the problem and discuss a possible way out. I leave “celebrity” terrorism aside since that is a different problem.

By terrorism I mean here attacks on civilians. In the middle east Muslims are attacked by Islamists and by Western (including russian and japanese) forces of ”law and order”. In parts of the middle east Muslims are killed as part of a civil war between sunni and shia and as part of resistance against western aggression. The West is there to protect access to raw materials and to prevent religious fanatics, instead of Western corporations, from controlling the region.  Both parties are killing innocent Muslim civilians.In other words a perfect whirlpool of mixed motives:

I don’t intend to give a complete rundown of terrorist activities or discuss the rights and wrongs of the situation. The main point is that civilians are being killed as a routine matter.

The difference is that Muslim fanatics are killing other Muslims to assert their power. The Western forces of “law and order” are killing Muslims because they simply don’t care. It is clear that in crowded cities and in firefights there is no automatic immunity for civilians, but weddings and funerals are bombed, schools and hospitals are attacked without anyone held responsible. Western state terrorists are not targeting Muslim civilians; they simply do not care. To the inhabitants of these areas the difference, between the two parties, is irrelevant. Dead is dead.

Considering the historical lessons of successful antiterrorist actions, I will outline a policy. When actions against terrorism have been successful (the British against IRA for exemple) this has been based on legality. This does not mean that brute force and extermination have not also been successful. But the cost to the host society and the incompleteness of the results has made this a very chancy proposition in a world where nuclear weapons are getting cheaper, more portable and finding disturbed fanatics to carry them easier all the time.

Legality has the following parts.

1. A clear dividing line between legal and illegal activities
2. Those that are innocent are generally acquitted
3. No punishment greater than the crime committed
4. Members of military and paramilitary forces of “law and order” who have gone over the line are put on trial

The first time any officer is put on trial for “carelessness” resulting in civilian casualties will be  the el alamein of the fight against terrorism.

The first time any officer will be charged in an international court for the breach of point 4 will be the D-day of counterterrorism.

Legality is the first element but there is another element which the terrorists completely lack. The second element is kindness, which can be shown in many ways. Here is how you can think of kindness in today’s world, even if I hope you will find a better way. Apart of the manipulators, most terrorists are not very well acquainted with the Koran and its meaning.  One suggestion is that captured terrorists on the fringes of atrocities will serve their prison sentence building a mosque and their evenings studying Koran under a moderate mulla. The purpose of the studies is not to convert them but leave them informed.

The conflict between the muslim world and the west won’t be solved by violence.

 

The pig in Nato’s poke: what is missing?

For Sweden, to join Nato, is to choose between malaria and the plague. With malaria you don’t feel very well but the plague is usually deadly. From this viewpoint the question is not to join but how to join.  The first that strikes one is the unanalyzed negotiation situation. Some demands are difficult to get a hearing, others are important for Sweden but minor for Nato. I will mention two:a. Compensation for damage from military maneuvers to reindeer husbandry which is central to the same people, who are the original inhabitants of the area. b: An involuntary scarcity of women. To solve these is neither difficult or expensive for Nato.

Two major problems remain.  The first is the presence of nuclear weapons on swedish soil. Every possible aggressor will be convinced that these are present whether the government stonewalls or not. Nato will not accept such a restriction. But nuclear devices are not only a danger for Sweden but for each Nato country. Knowledge how to make smaller nuclear devices is becoming more common, knowledge how to move these is becoming more common (you don’t need missiles) and the will to offer one’s life to explode a nuclear device is becoming more common.

A more constructive solution is that Nato establishes a powerful authority for an international elimination of nuclear weapons coupled to an internationally accepted whistleblower law.  This is in the interest of Nato, just as much, as a military form of defence.

The second problem is practically absent in swedish Nato discussions. I present a few short scenarios to make it visible. a. A number of IKEA stores are burnt to the ground. Should Nato take military action? b. A country nationalizes french oil holdings without compensation. Should Nato take military action? c. A country prevents fishing vessels from Nato countries from fishing within its territorial waters. Should Nato take military action?

As you may notice, I have not listed any US corporations in these scenarios. It is no point in blaming others instead of starting to clean up our own back yard. The problem is just as much Europe’s.

To be exact. Nato membership means that  tin boxes with swedish soldiers can come from Moldavia, Svalbard and Afghanistan??!! (What Nato country borders on Afghanistan?) But this is done to defend Nato’s  borders and prevent even greater casualties.

Sweden should demand that no Swedish military action should be taken outside Nato’s borders unless it is followed within a month by a clear majority vote  in parliament. (the pearl harbor rule). Even if Nato does not agree, the question will not disappear and not only in Sweden.

Shall swedish soldiers die to defend Coca Cola, Ikea and Mcdonalds? Finally, does Sweden seek membership in a defence alliance or in an assembly  for economic aggression?