The Hamster Wheel Analysis

Global Warming Video

2010-12-10T09:58:00.005+01:00

If global warming was as serious as politicians, such as Al Gore, would have us believe, how come they are not putting any effort into finding ways to combat it? Cutting carbon dioxide emissions will not have a noticeable effect on climate change for generations. If we urgently need to fix the "problem", we must find alternatives.

I don't believe that we need to get into geo-engineering to save the earth from frying up; what I want to show with this video is simply that the suggestions they have for stopping or slowing down global warming does nothing to change the course but will greatly affect the world's economies negatively. If they really believe in global warming, they should also be aware of that cutting carbon dioxide emissions wouldn't be anywhere near enough.

In the end, the global warming fear-mongers enjoy the control they get by manipulating the population into thinking that global warming is real and that everybody bears a responsibility simply by breathing; we are all the enemies. Is there a better way to create a perpetual war?

I made this video to illustrate my point.

Julian Assange smear campaign?

2010-11-20T21:54:00.005+01:00

Don't get me wrong. I believe that men who rape or sexually assault women are the lowest of creatures and should be treated as such. Women should also not fear to tell the truth when they have been raped and should be treated with decency when telling their story.

However, in rare cases, the man being accused is innocent, and one cannot, therefore, assume that all allegations are true.

In the case of the rape allegations against Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, a few things should make one suspicious. It seems like he did have sex with the two women, and although perhaps morally questionable, there is nothing illegal about "not phoning them back".

According to an article in The Daily Mail:

One source close to the investigation said the woman had insisted he wear a condom, but the following morning he made love to her without one.

This was the basis for the rape charge. But after the event she seemed unruffled enough to go out to buy food for his breakfast.
Her only concern was about leaving him alone in her flat. ‘I didn’t feel I knew him very well,’ she explained.
They ate in an atmosphere that was tense, though she said in her statement that she tried to lighten the mood by joking about the possibility that she might be pregnant.
They parted on friendly terms and she bought his train ticket back to Stockholm. When she asked if he would call, he said: ‘Yes, I will.’
But he did not and neither did he answer her calls.

Note that "they parted on friendly terms". it did not turn ugly until the woman got into contact with the second woman that Assange had been seeing.

The drama took a bizarre and ultimately sensational turn after she called the office of Woman A, whom she had briefly met at the seminar.
The two women talked and realised to their horror and anger that they had both been victims of his charm.
The issue of unprotected sex left a fear of disease. It is believed that they both asked him to take a test for STDs and he refused.
Woman B was especially anxious about the possibility of HIV and pregnancy.
And it was in this febrile state that the women, who barely knew each other, walked into a police station and began to tell their stories.

If this is true, pressing charges against Assange for "breaking their hearts" is hardly the right way to go, and if they were worried about STDs or being pregnant, there is health care services one can turn to. Why the need to go to the police to find out how to force him to be tested?

Woman A said afterwards that she had not wanted to press charges but had gone to support the younger woman, who wanted police advice on how to get Assange to take a medical test.

Wow, seriously, is this it? The definition of rape is "sexual intercourse with a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly by force or deception." Well, as far as I can see, there was no force and she was in consent.

However, the women's lawyer stated that the women were upset by how the case had been handled.

This case is a regressive sign for women that it’s not worth reporting when something like this happens,’ she said.

Well, yeah, why should women report that they've been raped when they have not?

According to some, however, men bear a collective guilt against women, and ironically enough, one of these extremist feminist is Claes Borgström: the two women's complainer. He once stated that men have a collective guilt for violence against women. (Wikipedia)

Furthermore, one of the women, as well as Claes Borgström, are politically active in the Social Democratic party, which makes one question their neutrality in the matter.

In the end, the allegations do not really seem to be true, but it is efficient smear campaigning against Assange. Very convenient...

Quantitative Easing Explained

2010-11-15T23:53:00.003+01:00

Are we in the Twilight zone?

Enjoy.

Helen Thomas' "retirement"

2010-06-09T10:55:00.002+02:00

89 year old journalist Helen Thomas was forced to quit her job as a columnist for The Hearst newspapers after having made controversial remarks on Israel's occupation of Palestine. White house press secretary Robert Gibbs condemned the commentaries and called them offensive.

What she said was "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember that these people are occupied, and it is their land, not Germany, not Poland...they should go home, [to] Germany, Poland, and America and everywhere else. Why push people out who have lived there for centuries."

Thomas has always been one of the few who has dared to ask the tough question and speak up even when her opinions were not politically correct. According to many, she took it a step too far this time, but it is actually quite irrelevant. What is interesting is how, in the wake of the Ship to Gaza massacre, her comments can cause so much outrage while Israel's killing of civilians trying to help out fellow men go relatively uncovered by media in America. We should be outraged by murder, not by people speaking up for what they believe in. And how come every time anyone dares to criticize Israel, they are called anti-semantic? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Those who speak up for the Palestinians, a semantic people, should be labelled pro-semantic? Of course, it is all a play with words, and while we focus on putting labels on people, there are real wars out there and real people dying.

If it´s not broken, don´t fix it!

2010-04-18T11:43:00.002+02:00

...and don´t replace it with something that is a whole lot worse.

It's been a year now since I first wrote on this blog about energy saving light bulbs and their potential danger to the environment and to our health.

Now, a new Swiss study has found that energy saving light bulbs emit dangerous radiation, which may lead to acute nerve and muscle damage. It is now recommended that one avoids being closer than 30 cm to these types of light bulbs for any longer period of time.

To sum it up, energy efficient light bulbs are good because they lower your electricity bill by a few dollars per year, but they destroy the environment if they are handled the wrong way and thrown in the trash, if they happen to break, you may get poisoned, and you have to give up reading in bed as you may suffer cardiac arrhythmia from the radiation they emit.

Also, energy efficient light bulbs don't emit any heat like a good old fashion light bulb does, so if you live in a cold country like Sweden, you might not even save money on your electricity bill as you will have to compensate for the lack of heat from the light bulbs by turning up the heat on your radiator instead. It´s also pretty annoying to have to wait several seconds for the light to go on every time you turn on the switch.

Instead of reinventing the wheel, perhaps we should focus on inventions that actually bring real environmental benefit.

Source: Swissinfo.ch

Who is Herman van Rompuy?

2010-02-27T22:47:00.003+01:00

Nigel Farage provides us with a colourful and slightly shocking description, and...well...bravo Mr. Farage.

Know thy enemy

2010-02-04T10:14:00.007+01:00

By definition, an enemy is "One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another" (source)

An enemy to me is someone who threatens my freedoms, humiliates me, lies to me and puts me and my family in danger.

Whoever tries to poison me through vaccinations, whoever lies to me and steals my money for their own benefit, whoever forces me to strip down in order to travel, whoever spies on me, whoever seeks to control what I write or say, whoever puts me and my family in danger knowingly while pretending to protect us...that is an enemy.

Al-Quaeda does not fit with my definition of an enemy, yet they are the ones we are allegedly at war with.

Link between autoimmune disease and swine flu vaccine?

2010-01-25T19:45:00.004+01:00

Many who took the vaccine against swine flu experienced strong adverse reactions. The adjuvant, whose purpose is to enhance the efficiency of the vaccine, creates a strong immune response. Common short term side effects include muscle pain, swelling or tenderness at injection site. A small price to pay?

Well, more serious side effects have also occurred, such as Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is a neurological disorder.

When you read about side effects, you must also keep in mind that they only mention short term side effects. There is no saying how vaccines, and adjuvanted vaccines in particular, affect long term health. What's to say that there is no connection between autoimmune disease and vaccines?

Autoimmune disease arise from an overactive immune response of the body against substances and tissues normally present in the body. In other words, the body actually attacks its own cells.The immune system mistakes some part of the body as a pathogen and attacks it. (Wikipedia)

The adjuvant used in GSK vaccines is squalene, which is an oil that is present naturally in the human body. So if it is naturally present in the human body, it must be safe, right?

Well, just think about it. The point of a vaccine is to stimulate the immune system so that the body creates antibodies ready to attack the virus in case of infection. If squalene is added to the vaccine, is there perhaps a risk that the body sees squalene too as a threat?

A wild idea? Well, this article from The Gazette brings up the fact that Switzerland's medical regulator has warned patients with serious autoimmune diseases not to use swine flu vaccine from Novartis as there has been no study in the effect it may have on these people.

Swissmedic said on Wednesday it could not be ruled out that either or both of the adjuvant -- which can enhance the immune response -- and the antigen, or less active ingredient, could lead to an intensifying of autoimmune diseases.

Autoimmune diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis, are caused by an overly active immune system attacking its own body, targeting substances which are normally present.

So ask yourself, if the vaccine can worsen the disease among those who already have autoimmune disease, is it not also a possibility that it could trigger it among those who are genetically predispositioned to develop it?

Who is responsible for the scam?

2010-01-13T21:54:00.005+01:00

So we were right all along. The pandemic was really a non-pandemic and yet 5 million Swedes were lured into getting vaccinated and the government spent 1.2 billion on buying in 18 million doses of the vaccine from GSK. Now that the "pandemic" is over, media wants us to believe that it was thanks to the vaccine. They never mention the fact that although very few in the rest of Europe got the vaccine, the death rates were no higher than in Sweden. The numbers just don't add up. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the whole thing was a scam and that the vaccines had no effect whatsoever.

Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, claims major firms organised a "campaign of panic" to put pressure on the World Health Organisation to declare a pandemic.
He believes it is "one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century" — and has called for an inquiry.
An emergency debate on the issue will be held by the Council later this month.
Dr Wodarg said: "It's just a normal kind of flu. It does not cause a tenth of deaths caused by the classic seasonal flu.
"The great campaign of panic we have seen provided a golden opportunity for representatives from labs who knew they would hit the jackpot in the case of a pandemic being declared.
"We want to clarify everything that brought about this massive operation of disinformation. We want to know who made decisions, on the basis of what evidence, and precisely how the influence of the pharmaceutical industry came to bear on the decision-making."
He added: "A group of people in the WHO is associated very closely with the pharmaceutical industry."(The Sun)

Heads should be rolling, but they are not...

The "terrorist attack" has false flag written all over it

2009-12-30T13:26:00.007+01:00

One would think that all the measures taken by governments to ensure airport safety would have had at least some effect, but as the Christmas day bombing illustrates, rigid airport security clearly isn't the way to go to combat terrorism. With help from the inside, all security measures will prove to be fruitless.

Yet, after every new terrorist attack, we can bet that we'll be introduced to more outrageous security measures that in no way has proven effectiveness. While security personnel treat the average traveler with a nail clipper or a bottle of water as a potential terrorist, real threats are ignored to such a degree that one starts to wonder if there is more to it than just plain stupidity.

Instead of media discussing how to further limit our freedoms by introducing more invasive security technology, such as full body scanners, they should be analysing how the "terrorist" could have been granted a visa in the first place.

[D]isturbing questions swirled about how the suspect was able to get on the U.S.-bound plane with a one-way ticket, a bomb in his pants and a questionable background. Abdulmutallab has been on a watch list by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center for two years, an official said. There are 550,000 people with suspected ties to terrorism on the list. Relatives in Nigeria said the suspect's father - a prominent banker - was stunned his son was allowed to fly to the U.S. The father alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria months ago that his son had developed "extreme religious views" and had disappeared, the Nigerian newspaper This Day reported. (Daily News)

Most travellers are well aware of the fact that one can't travel on a one-way ticket to the US unless one is a citizen. Yet, this young Nigerian man, who was on a terror watch list and of "questionable background" was granted both a visa and to travel with a one way-ticket. How hard is it to check if someone is on a watch list before granting them a visa? That should pretty much be the first step in the process. And if Al Qaeda had really provided him with training and a bomb, couldn't they also have bought him a two-way ticket?

Abdulmutallab's communication with his family had stopped while he was studying abroad. Before that, he had not shown signs of extremist views.

The disappearance and cessation of communication which got his mother and father concerned to report to the security agencies are completely out of character and a very recent development as before then, from very early childhood, Farouk, to the best of parental monitoring, had never shown any attitude, conduct or association that would give concern. As soon as concern arose, very recently, his parents, reported it and sought help. (The Sun News)

Why did this man all of the sudden cut of communication with his family and join Al Qaeda when he had a very promising future ahead of himself?

Furthermore, eyewitness Kurt Haskell states that a young man he could later confirm was suspected terrorist Abdulmutallab was able to board the airplane without even holding a passport, aided by an East Indian looking man in a suit. The East Indian man claimed that the Nigerian was a Sudanese refugee as an explanation as to why he was lacking a passport.

Shouldn't we be looking into who the well-dressed man accompanying Abdulmutallab is? What's to say that Abdulmutallab even had the device when he walked though the security check? The bomb could just as well have belonged to the Indian man.

Below is a video from CNN:

What I would like media to address are these inconsistencies and to scrutinize claims made by the government. Is really Al Qaeda to be blamed for this? The evidence so far is a video from Yemen with an alleged terrorist who happened to die a few days later as well as a "confession" from Abdulmutallab.

It will be interesting to see if the media does their job or if we'll just end up with more propaganda on how full body scans can prevent terrorist attacks and aren't deemed to compromise integrity like before, or about how it's necessary to expand the war on terror...perhaps to Yemen.

All this, while the real criminals run free and criticism is silenced.

The government hasn't failed us, they have fooled us...many times.

No, reporting on the Palestinians' situation is not "anti-semantic"

2009-12-25T15:39:00.003+01:00

If there is something that really upsets me it's people accusing Sweden of being anti-semantic because they care about the horrific crimes crimes committed by Israel towards the Palestinians. People should react to the fact that Israel chooses to use white phosphorus bombs in the densely populated Gaza strip, for example. But for some reason, if the crimes are committed by Israel they don't show up on the radar to the same extent as if they had been committed by any other country. The tolerance level for Israel just seems to be so much higher in the International community.

How come? Perhaps because as soon as Israel is criticized they bring out the "Holocaust card" and call their accusers anti-semantic.

Back in August of this year, Donald Boström wrote a very controversial article (English translation) in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet. He described what UN workers and Palestinians had told him while he was in the area working on a book. He spoke to Palestinians who described how Israeli soldiers had stolen the bodies of killed Palestinian men and returned them several days later at night time, stitched together as if an autopsy had been made. But since the cause of death was so obvious, there was clearly no reason for an autopsy. The relatives therefor suspected that the real purpose of the operations was organ harvesting.

The article started a diplomatic war between Israel and Sweden. The Israeli foreign minister went as far as to demand that the Swedish state should intervene. Luckily they chose to support the freedom of press and not to get involved in this affair. But others were quick to pass judgement over Aftonbladet and Boström. Sydsvenskan, another Swedish newspaper, wrote that the article "stinks of anti-semantic thinking" while EU parliamentarian Gunnar Hökmark compares the article to Nazi propaganda and says that Aftonbladet belongs to "the dark forces". Netanyahu also condemns the Swedish government. (Aftonbladet)

It is easier to call "anti-semitism" instead of dealing with the real issue. And the real issue is that Israel is guilty of war crimes which they need to address.

About two weeks ago, Israeli military confessed that they had taken organs from bodies without the consent from relatives. In other words, they stole organs from bodies, many of which were Palestinians. This occurred during the 80's and 90's. Boström's article concerned events from the beginning of the 90's.

So was Boström's article really all that outrageously anti-semantic in the light of all this? When time and time again it turns out that the "crazy anti-semantic" stories are correct, then they should clearly not be seen as anti-semantic, just purely and simply investigative. Unfortunately, journalists fear telling the truth about Israel since they risk having their careers slaughtered.

I guess we shouldn't expect an official apology from Israeli authorities though. It will be just another story soon to be forgotten, and the next time someone says something bad about Israel again, they will be called anti-semantic...I wonder when they will have played all their cards because I am sure getting tired of their all too predictable moves. It's time for the world to take a stand against their lies. That Jews have been wronged does in no way automatically make everything that Israel does right.

In conclusion, if anyone should be blamed for fueling anti-semitism it is certainly not Boström who just reported on the Palestinian situation. The real (indirect?) supporters of modern anti-semitism is clearly the Israeli authorities.

On the road to serfdom

2009-12-19T22:50:00.011+01:00

Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries. (Wikipedia)

Like most people, you have probably not reflected much over who decided what furniture you should have in your house, what clothes you should wear, what your profession should be or where you should live. I'm guessing that these were all your own choices. Most people are quite capable of deciding what to do with their money and with their life for themselves. In fact, do you think that anyone else besides you could make better choices about what you should do with your life than you?

Of course not, and that is the beauty with a free market capitalist system. Nobody dictates what you should consume. It is a system that seems so perfect in its design that one would think that only a God could have created it to fit so well in our complex economy. But actually, it is quite simple; demand from consumers drives which products that are offered and competition leads companies to develop their products or suppress prices enough for consumers to choose theirs over their competitors'. Private companies have incentives to produce what the consumer wants since they will make profits from their sales if they are good enough. In the end, a close to perfect balance is achieved.

So what screws up the system sometimes? Well, the opposite of free market of course, that is, a controlled market. We try to protect certain interests by regulation, subsidies and tariffs, which lead to higher consumer prices or taxes. What people sometimes don't think about is that these measures to control the market also lead to inequality between people and suppression of economic development.

Yet, capitalism is very often scolded as if it was the work of the Devil. The system has been attacked for causing poverty, sweat shops, job losses and lately for causing global warming.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez held a quite shocking speech (to me anyways) on the Copenhagen Climate meeting on Wednesday. I happened to watch it live, and the perhaps most shocking part of the speech was that the attendees of the meeting were applauding him as he stated that capitalism needed to be dismantled. Here is a selection of quotes from venezuelaanalysis.com.

One could say, Mr. President, that a spectre is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a spectre is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that spectre walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this spectre is a terrible spectre almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the spectre, almost nobody wants to mention it.

It’s capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them.

Let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system! And consequently we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive development model that is putting an end to life; it threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.

The cause, undoubtedly, I return to the theme of this whole disastrous panorama, is the destructive metabolic system of capital and its embodied model: Capitalism.

Socialism, the other spectre Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-spectre. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt. Capitalism is the road to hell, to the destruction of the world.

If capitalism resists, we are obliged to take up a battle against capitalism and open the way for the salvation of the human species. It’s up to us, raising the banners of Christ, Mohammed, equality, love, justice, humanity, the true and most profound humanism. If we don’t do it, the most wonderful creation of the universe, the human being, will disappear, it will disappear.

After this powerful speech, perhaps a few of us are convinced that capitalism is the cancer that is destroying the earth and creating a divide between the rich and the poor. As I see and hear about the protests in Copenhagen, it wouldn't surprise me if many will soon be demanding socialism and a one world government that can govern this perceived gigantic problem. Because many believe that nothing can save us unless we give up our way our life and hand over responsibility to one institution. Capitalism got us into this mess, so socialism will surely get us out of it, right?

The problem with a controlled market still persists though. In order to tackle environmental problems, poverty must be dealt with, but how do they expect to create greater prosperity in developing countries or the world in general if the market forces that created prosperity here are no longer let to work? Because of the capitalism system, we are able to afford investment in clean energy, and since there is a demand for it, companies invest in it. To start forcing developing countries to switch to clean energy before they can afford to provide their citizens with the basics: food, housing and education, seems backward. But that is just what socialism does: it dictates over the people. Capitalism must follow the wishes of the people.

If we beg for socialism, that is what we will get, and it might not be the Utopia that we expected.

These cartoons in video format from 1950 show exactly what the problem with a controlled market is.

Obama's Nobel peace prize speech

2009-12-12T21:19:00.008+01:00

Obama came to Oslo yesterday to receive his peace prize and hold an impressive speech.

I found it interesting that he could mention the words "war", "force" and "defense" as much as he did in a PEACE prize speech. In the end, his speech did nothing more than to try to defend and justify continuing to do war.

I'd like to point out a few thing I picked up on:

1. He stated that sometimes war is justified as means of self defense. Well, clearly, if he had allowed a non-biased and complete investigation into 9/11, he would know that the US has not been under attack from those they are currently in war against. Had he allowed a new investigation, then perhaps, he would have been deserving of a peace prize.

2. He talks about creating "lasting peace". Clearly, going to war against "terrorism" is a perfect way to create perpetual war. This is quite the opposite to lasting peace I would say, because we can never win against "terrorism".

3. He is working on limiting the world's nuclear weapons. But I believe that the only way we can avoid that nations arm themselves is to abolish nuclear power in all forms. We can't continue building nuclear plants while not allowing other nations to build their own. Is it justified not allowing Iran to have nuclear power plants from fear that they might have more sinister plans in mind? Why is it that we trust that the US won't blow us all up but not Iran? After all, the US is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons in war.

4. The quote "The continued expansion of our moral imagination" is a good one, but how well is it reflected in Obama's work so far? Has he thought over the the moral aspect of denying widows and widowers the right to a fair investigations as to what really happened on 9/11, to waste billions on bail-outs while people loose their homes and to continue a costly war to find Bin Laden? If he has any moral imagination, it sure doesn't stretch very far.

An interesting note: Did you know that David Ray Griffin was nominated for the Nobel peace prize this year for his work to find out and spread the truth about 9/11? Obviously, he would have been more deserving of a peace prize because just imagine how many lives that could have been saved had we never been tricked into war because of false flag terrorism. Also, it would have sent a strong message to our leaders: We won't allow lies and the killing of innocent people, and we value the truth and freedom beyond all else.

Here is the speech in 4 parts:

The consensus that was not

2009-12-08T20:42:00.004+01:00

Does Climategate matter?

2009-12-08T10:47:00.005+01:00

Rex Murphy is so right about what it all comes down to.

"Some of the principal scientists behave as if the own the very question of global warming when they seek to bar opposing research from peer reviewed journals to embargo journals they can't control, when they urge each other to delete damaging e-mails before freedom of information takes hold, when they talk of 'hiding the decline', when they actually speak of destroying the primary data, when now we do learn that the primary data has been lost or destroyed. They've lost the raw data on which all the models, all the computer generated forecasts, graphs and projections are based. We wouldn't accept that at a grade 9 science fair."

"These e-mails display one thing beyond all else. That climate science and global warming advocacy have become so entwined, so meshed into a mutant creature that separating alarmism from investigation, ideology from science, agenda from empirical study is, well, impossible"

"Climate science needs its own reset button."

Climate Change consensus?

2009-11-29T13:18:00.008+01:00

I have for long been a keen supporter of the theory that climate change is to a great extent "man-made". After having watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", I came to believe that the evidence was irrefutable. Also, I was led to believe that there was a consensus among scientist and that the only ones who questioned the Climate Change Theory were pseudo-scientists paid off by oil companies. Besides, who could possibly gain from the scare mongering surrounding climate change?

Well, first of all, if somebody tells you that there is a consensus surrounding a scientific issue, you can expect that this is not actually the case. The reality is probably that those who voice a different opinion are being silenced and ridiculed. Also, you have to "follow the money" to find out if the "consensus" is really just something artificially created through selective funding. If the truth was really what we were aiming for, how come so much money is spent on linking the naturally occurring carbon dioxide to climate change while so little is devoted to other very serious environmental problems?

Another thing to look into is the effects of the doomsday reports on climate change. Who benefits from it?

Well, one would expect that if there had really been a consensus, we would have gotten a lot farther in the development of renewable energy. I am all for developing clean energy sources and funding research into technology that makes us less dependent on oil. But instead of focusing on things that might actually make us more prosperous, much energy is being devoted to 1. pump money into research that "proves" the connection between carbon dioxide and climate change 2. spreading fear about the possible effects of climate change 3. spreading the idea that we humans bear responsibility for climate change by living, breathing and consuming, and most importantly perhaps, 4. setting up the stage for a necessary global governance.

So in the end, the Climate Change Conference that will be held in Copenhagen has very little to do with saving our planet and a lot to do with control over people's lives. A "war against CO2" has about the same probability of success as a "war against terrorism". Therefore, if they want to control our daily lives, focusing on CO2 is a great way to go. We are all guilty of emitting CO2 simply by breathing.

And the fight against CO2 is becoming more and more extreme. The UN has for example suggested using condoms in our fight against climate change, because clearly, overpopulation is the great threat against humanity.(UN: Fight climate change with free condoms) Our new EU president sees 2009 as the first year of Global Governance. The Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen will take us one step closer to Global management of out planet.

2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.

If you wish to learn about alternative theories on climate change, you may want to watch this documentary in 8 parts.

The debate about whether on not man-made climate change is real is not over and certainly not proven beyond doubt. Perhaps we humans have some effect on climate change, but the evidence so far is not convincing, and alternative theories need to be heard and given as much funding as the carbon dioxide theory.

Are you willing to give up your rights to a world government without evidence that we are the cause of climate change? Do you agree with those who call for population reduction as a mean of curbing climate change although there is nothing to support their claims that we are too many on the earth?

We are walking on a very dangerous path toward a new world order, and they see us as parasites who need to be controlled. When we realize that they are using climate change as a reason to fight against us, we should be concerned.

WHO reaches the "logical" conclusion we have been waiting for

2009-11-25T20:04:00.005+01:00

The laboratory created swine flu virus has proven not to be particularly deadly, so the WHO has had to keep coming up with stories, changing the definition of pandemic and manipulating with data in order to scare the people into taking the vaccine. When it first was discovered in Mexico, we learned that many died and fell seriously ill, but then when it spread to other parts of the world it turned out to be less deadly than the seasonal flu (how come?). The WHO still declared a Pandemic and Sweden was forced to buy 18 million doses of vaccine from GSK.

What to do with 18 million doses without a sign of a Pandemic? Blow it completely out of proportion perhaps? To aid in the elite's propaganda war against the masses, the media was quick to start reporting extensively on every single death from flu like symptom andbringing in "expert" to convince people that the vaccine was "completely safe" while ignoring any safety concerns about the vaccine.

The problem now is that in many countries, the people aren't sheep like in Sweden. They can see that the virus isn't all that dangerous and they have studied the dangers with the vaccine, reaching the only rational conclusion that getting the shot is plain stupid.

Even the sane, however, can't help to get a bit worried about the rumors spreading that the virus might mutate to become more deadly. As usual, the oh so trustable WHO has kept warning people for long that this virus might mutate to a deadlier version even though this is far from the norm. So why would they expect a deadly mutation if this does not normally happen with influenza viruses?

It could mix with avian influenza viruses of course!

MANILA, 24 November 2009—The World Health Organization (WHO) warned today that newly confirmed cases of avian influenza or A(H5N1) in poultry in Egypt, Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam were a reminder that the virus continues to pose a threat to humans.

The presence of H5N1 in poultry poses a health risk in two ways. First, it places those in direct contact with birds—usually rural folk and farm workers—at risk of catching the often-fatal disease. Second, the virus could undergo a process of “reassortment” with another influenza virus and produce a completely new strain.

The most obvious risk is of H5N1 combining with the pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus, producing a flu virus that is as deadly as the former and as contagious as the latter. "We don't know if this is possible, but we are certainly aware of the risk," said Dr Shin Young-soo, WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific. "We are on alert for this development."

Reassortment occurs when the genes of two or more types of influenza virus mix in a host animal—often a pig, duck or chicken—and form an entirely new strain of the virus that is new to humans.

In April, after the reassortment of avian, swine and human strains of influenza in pigs in Mexico, a novel influenza virus—the pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 virus—emerged in humans. This virus spread quickly around the world and has probably infected millions of people, killing thousands. (WHO)

Well, it is an obvious risk, but the risk is not that this will somehow occur naturally. First, we can remind ourselves about what happened earlier this year, when vaccines from Baxter were contaminated with live avian flu. If this vaccine had made the market, many would have died because of the vaccination. Then, think about all the millions of people being vaccinated against swine flu and consider the possibility that some vaccines are contaminated with live bird flu. Now there we have the recipe for a disastrous outcome. The bird flu that is very deadly but not very contagious would combine with swine flu virus which is not very deadly at all but quite contagious.

The WHO made up the pandemic from a lab created virus. Can they be trusted?

Democracy lost

2009-11-23T11:22:00.004+01:00

You might have heard that the Treaty of Lisbon was ratified. The Swedish citizens, as well as the citizens of most other European countries, did not get to vote. I assume that the decision makers didn't think we would be able to deliver the "right result". So it was all up the Irish voters to decide for our future. They voted "no"...but since that wasn't the "right answer" they had to vote again. Once the propaganda machinery and scaremongering was fully working, they managed to squeeze a "yes" out of the voters.

So what does this all mean? Well, so far, we have a new permanent President and a Foreign minister.

Hm, a President and a Foreign minister. That sounds like something that countries have. Why have a President and a Foreign minister if the EU is not even a country?

Maybe we missed the part about us becoming one state while we were lining up to get our flu shot? Perhaps we also forgot that we didn't vote in a Presidential election? And if we now have a Foreign minister, shouldn't that also mean that all countries within the EU are "domestic", i.e. within the same country?

Not that I thought our system of democracy was very well functioning to begin with, but the little we had seems to have completely vanished right before our eyes.

The people do not possess the power even if the illusion that we do till remains. Our leaders are hand picked by the Bilderberg group (Carl Bildt and prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt have attended). See this article from Aftonbladet. Reinfeldt describes the meetings as a "discussion group". But how informal can it be when the elite all meet up. They are hardly discussing soccer or the latest novels from Oprah's book club. When also people from the highest positions in media and business are invited (without being able to disclose anything said during the meetings) i doubt that the meetings are as informal as they'd like us to think. If the meetings were informal, and what they discussed didn't have any greater influence over our lives, then why the secrecy? Why even bother to meet at all?

Perhaps they are keeping it secret from us because the realize that we aren't smart enough to understand. It's much better that we just let the elite decide over our lives and carry on with our Christmas shopping.

The WHO who cried wolf

2009-11-20T19:43:00.004+01:00

You have probably heard the fable about the boy who cried wolf. The boy was a shepherd responsible for looking after a herd of sheep, but he got bored sitting around all day guarding the sheep, so he decided to entertain himself by crying out "wolf!". This of course, made the villagers panic and come rushing to kill the wolf so it wouldn't eat the sheep. He managed to fool the villagers a few times. But one day the wolf actually appeared and when the boy cried "wolf!", they naturally didn't believe him, and the wolf ended up killing and eating all the sheep.

The moral of the story is that is that you shouldn't tell lies as people won't believe you when you tell the truth.

I assume that the WHO hasn't heard this fable because they have been scaremongering and lying to us so much that it astonishes me that anyone even listens to them anymore.

They declared a pandemic over the swine flu, even though the flu has been proven to be milder than seasonal flu. They have manipulated with statistics to make it seem as if we have more cases of swine flu than we do, they have tried to make us believe that the vaccine is perfectly safe (even for pregnant women and babies) and that it has been sufficiently tested.

What is really the purpose of WHO's existence? Because it seems like they are just fooling around with us right now. I am thinking that this makes it really hard to know when they are being serious.

When we are being bombarded with propaganda every day, we might miss the important stuff and react the wrong way when something serious does occur. If for example the virus "mutates", should we really be taking more vaccines? Since the WHO promoted the jab, they will probably just increase the propaganda and accelerate the vaccinations.

For most people though, it is quite simple. They just don't consider the possibility that the WHO is lying to them, follow the masses and stand neatly in line to get the jab.

Actually, most people are more like the sheep in the fable than the villagers, following and trusting their shepherd who ends up messing it all up and getting them killed because of his foolish games.

They need someone to look for for guidance, but that person they are following has clearly shown that he really has no interest in their safety. Wouldn't it be better just to trust one's own judgement instead and get someone else to look out for wolves?

They are sure making fun of us

2009-11-16T22:07:00.003+01:00

Apparently, an Illuminati card game was created in 1995 by Steve Jackson games, predicting for example the events on 9/11. This is not a joke (Wikipedia)

What is yet to come?

Why people should be paid for taking the vaccine

2009-11-14T18:56:00.006+01:00

I have previously discussed the fact that the vaccines against H1N1 have been fast-tracked and not properly tested [1]. The Medical Product Agency seem perfectly fine with this though. The situation calls for quick action, which means that skipping a few steps is called for. That the swine flu has turned out to be less deadly than the seasonal flu is a small side note.

Most people probably can't be bothered to consider the dangers with the vaccines. This vaccine is no different from any other, and we have all grown up with propaganda about how vaccines are both necessary and perfectly safe. Those who don't want vaccines are just wimps afraid of a tiny needle that will cause a slight discomfort to the injection area. The side effect of a slight pain in the arm is clearly much better than falling ill and quite possibly dying from some horrific disease.

Well, first of all, risks exist, and this vaccine contains ingredients that are proven to be bad for our health. These risks should not be downplayed. Squalene is an ingredient included in Arepanrix and Pandemrix (same vaccine but the first one is made in Quebec and the second in Germany) that is not approved by the FDA. How come the US won't allow it? Perhaps because it has been shown that it has quite undesirable effects. [2] We have also learned that the vaccine contains mercury. But of course this risk has been downplayed since the level of mercury is so low that it couldn't possibly do any harm. Apparently, two portions of fish contain as much mercury as one dose of vaccine. What they fail to mention, however, is that a substance that is injected into us is not treated in the same way as a substance we digest. Isn't there a reason for Sweden banning mercury in child vaccines?

I wanted to know more about how well Arepanrix and Pandemrix have been tested and if GSK had found any possible risks involved with the vaccines, so I turned to the Product Information Leaflet, which I assume any nurse or doctor is obliged to have read before being allowed to inject patients with the vaccine. I also assume that they would be obliged to inform patients on possible side effects and unknowns.

But now that I have read the leaflet about Arepanrix, I find it strange that any doctor or nurse could feel good about injecting this stuff into their patients or themselves.

Basically, all those who take the vaccine are being used as test subjects since so few studies have been conducted (especially for those under 18 years old and pregnant women).

First of all, we should all be aware of that the mock up vaccine used in the study was a vaccine against avian flu, H5N1. "The avian influenza strain H5N1 strain was initially considered as a possible candidate to cause the next influenza pandemic." So studies with the actual H1N1 strain vaccine are very limited.

Here follows some thought provoking quotes from the Product Information Leaflet for Arepanrix:

No data have been generated in pregnant women with Arepanrix™ H1N1 nor with the prototype AS03 adjuvanted H5N1 vaccine. (p. 7)
Two reproductive studies were conducted with AS03-adjuvanted H5N1 antigen and evaluated the effect on embryo-fetal and peri-and post-natal development in rats, following intramuscular administration. Although no definite conclusion could be reached, regarding a possible relation to treatment with the H5N1 vaccine and/or the adjuvant AS03, and other findings were considered normal, the following observations deserve to be mentioned: In the first study, there was an increased incidence of fetal malformations with markedly medially thickened/kinked ribs and bent scapula as well as an increased incidence of dilated ureter and delayed neurobehavioral maturation. In the second study, there was an increased incidence of post-implantation
loss, and the fetal variation of dilated ureter. Not all findings were observed in both studies, and hence the toxicological significance is uncertain. (p. 18)
Elderly (>60 years): No clinical data are available for Arepanrix™ H1N1 in this age group. (p. 6)
Children and adolescents aged 10-17 years: No clinical data are available for any influenza vaccines with AS03 in this age group. (p. 6)
Children aged from 6-35 months: No clinical data are available for influenza vaccines with AS03 in this age group. (p. 6)

Here are some interesting quotes from the CHMP Assessment Report for Pandemrix:

[from studies in rats] In neonates, the reflex development was unimpaired, but among offspring from dams treated with AS03 13 offspring from 7 litters did not show the air righting reflect before day 21 of age and this effect may be related to treatment (p. 16)
The real benefits of Pandemrix A(H1N1)v can only be assessed by its use during a pandemic. At present the benefit can only be evaluated based on detailed characterisation of immunological responses to vaccination with the mock-up version of Pandemrix (i.e. containing H5N1 strains) plus the limited data available from administration of a single dose of A(H1N1)v vaccine to healthy adults aged 18-60 years. (p. 64)
Based on the data with H5N1 vaccine and the available data with A(H1N1)v vaccine the expected benefit of Pandemrix is to provide some protection against clinically-apparent infection due to A(H1N1) (p. 64)

Ain't it swell how well the public has been informed about the vaccine: its possible side effects and how well it has been tested? Every person needs to weigh the benefits and risks for themselves, but before doing so, they need the information. They should consider how benign this influenza is and that they will be test subjects for a vaccine if they decide to take it. They should also be aware that getting the vaccine is no guarantee for immunization as the vaccine has been expected to provide "some protection", which doesn't sound all too convincing to me. Pregnant women should be especially cautious.

Hard facts or below the belt tactics?

2009-11-09T18:14:00.005+01:00

Unbiased reporting, free from preconceptions and personal attacks is clearly too much to ask for from the mainstream media. I have yet to see a mainstream media "documentary" about the 911 Truth movement that looks into the facts and weighs arguments against each other to see which arguments that hold.

I found it especially ironic that a a TV program called "Kalla fakta" (Hard facts) completely fails to look at the hard facts. They claim that their mission is to "scrutinize and expose politicians, dynasts and social phenomenons with the ambition to stand on the side of the weaker party" (TV 4)

I watched their coverage yesterday on the Truth movement and during the short 30 minute show, they managed to attack a Swedish politicians for confessing that he questions the official explanation as to what happened on 911, linked the movement to antisemitism and compared the movement to a religious sect.

Some theories were briefly mentioned in the beginning but the rest of the show was devoted to complete defamation of figures within the Truth movement. With no evidence whatsoever, they said that antisemitism is widespread in the movement.

-It is about the smallest common denominator and in this specific case to give the Jews the blame. It is nothing less than Nazi like ideas, says journalist and author Torbjörn Elensky to Kalla fakta.

Torbjörn Elensky has criticized the Truth movement and the widespread antisemitism that flourishes among its supporter. (TV 4)

It is true that the Truth movement thinks that the Israeli intelligence, Mossad, had some involvement in the attacks. This is in no way connected to antisemitism or denying the Holocaust. Kalla fakta needs to keep their facts straight. Those criticizing a country or a group of people living in that country should not be confused with those who want to exterminate people because of religious beliefs or ethnicity. I couldn't care less what religion people choose to have. I do however mind how Israel plays the Holocaust card every time they are accused of something. Because of history, they are given a carte blanche to do whatever they please. I am sure many Jews find it offensive how the state of Israel is using the deaths of the Jews in the Holocaust to go ahead and commit war crimes against Palestinians.

Changing one's world view and realizing the implications of 911 being an inside job is perhaps not easy, but it is important to inform oneself. Only then can we turn the tide and work for a better future. If we close our eyes and hope for the best, we will be under the complete control of tyrants. If people don't step up and question the official theory, the elite will know that they can get away with it, and they won't stop here.

Reporters have clearly shown that they have no ability to think critically anymore, and they would do themselves a favour if they just stuck their hands in the sand instead of making such a worthless debunking and defaming attempt. It embarrasses me to see how low we have sunk.

4 year old boy in coma after taking vaccine

2009-11-08T21:42:00.004+01:00

A 4 year old Swedish boy who had gotten the vaccine against swine flu on Wednesday started to shake and get cramps on Friday and shortly afterwards he stopped breathing and fell into a coma. Luckily, he survived, and the doctors at the hospital confirmed that this had been caused by the vaccine. They also said that this was not a unique case. Another child had been brought in on the same day because of the vaccine. (Aftonbladet)

Of course, they still recommend parents to go ahead and vaccinate their children with this vaccine.

The missing link

2009-11-07T11:32:00.011+01:00

Since the WHO raised the pandemic alert level to level 6 (the highest one) on June 11, 2009, in response to the "novel" strain of influenza virus discovered in April of this year, we have been bombarded with news about people dying and how important it is for us all to get vaccinated to stop this virus from spreading with devastating consequences.

But, any person with a minimum ability to think critically will have found many bogus claims and questionable data provided by the WHO and the media in order to justify their actions.

Here are a few questions I have asked myself:

1. How come the WHO decided to change the criteria for what a pandemic is so that is would fit the A H1N1 virus?
2. Why this hype when the H1N1 virus has proven to be less deadly than the seasonal flu?
3. Why do we not hear anything about deaths from the seasonal flu this year?
4. If the flu isn't deadly, why do we need the mass vaccinations? If it mutates to become more deadly, then the vaccine should not help anyways
5. How can they predict a second wave worse than the first and that a mutation will occur when this does not normally occur with the flu virus?
6. Why have they stopped testing for swine flu?

Right now there is nothing really to indicate that the H1N1 is worse than the seasonal flu, rather the opposite. Yet, there is extreme fear mongering from the media and WHO.

There is a link missing somewhere. The WHO must have been expecting a pandemic, and they have declared one with no basis on real world facts.

The question is: why were they expecting a pandemic?

I have been working hard on trying to understand what is going on, and today I found something that really makes all the pieces fit together. This video in 6 parts is a MUST SEE.

Doctor Teresa Forcades explains everything and links the declaration of a pandemic by the WHO to the "accidental" shipment of vaccines contaminated with LIVE BIRD FLU by Baxter to 16 different laboratories in Europe. (See Swine flu pandemic? for some background information)

Had the vaccine been used to vaccinate people against the seasonal flu, we would have had a pandemic! Luckily, we avoided this, but the WHO's declaration of a pandemic still remains.

Here is the resume: SOME THOUGHTS AND A PROPOSAL WITH REGARD TO ‘SWINE FLU’ Other languages: German, Italian
For a related article in French

If the infected vaccines had reached the market, we would have had a mutated deadly virus. The WHO seems to have expected this to happen and when it didn't, they went along with the plans and still declared a pandemic.

This may seem crazy, but it's not the first time something like this happens. On September 11, 2001, two of the planes crashed into the twin towers, which then collapsed. One plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania as it was taken down and unable to reach its target. Later during the day, building 7, next to the twin towers, collapsed, just like the twin towers. Supposedly due to fire.

One has speculated as to where the plane was headed for. Putting two and two together, it seems highly probable the plane was headed for building 7. When the original plan didn't quite work out, they went ahead anyways and decided to take the building down. Just as the plane crashing in Pennsylvania is the missing link explaining why building 7 collapsed, could it be that the detection of the contaminated vaccines is the missing link explaining why the WHO went ahead and declared a pandemic although there was nothing to indicate a pandemic? On September 11, the laws of physics were defeated. Likewise, on June 11 2009, the WHO ignored scientific evidence and declared a pandemic. Why?

IT IS TIME FOR A NEW TRUTH MOVEMENT.

Squalene - the hidden history

2009-11-03T22:49:00.002+01:00

In the USA, squalene is not approved as an adjuvant in vaccines and the authorities have denied that any squalene was used in the Anthrax vaccines given to the soldiers who later developed Gulf War Syndrome.

Yet, the vaccine now being injected into the high risk groups in Sweden (including pregnant women and children) contains this adjuvant. So here we assume that it is safe enough to be injected into young or unborn children whereas it is banned from use in the USA even in healthy adults.

In Sweden, not nearly enough media attention has been given to this issue, and whenever squalene is mentioned, it is argued that it is perfectly safe because squalene occurs naturally in the human body. Of course, this makes little sense. An oil adjuvant injected together with foreign material into the body is not the same thing as an oil that is ingested. If it was so safe it should have been approved in the USA a long time ago because experiments have been conducted involving squalene and similar adjuvants in vaccines for many many years...the problem of course is that they haven't been very successful in accomplishing what they claim to accomplish.

I came across this frightening excerpt from a book called Vaccine A.

Today, only one adjuvant—an aluminum salt called alum—is licensed for human use. All the oil adjuvants are so noxious that their use is restricted to experiments with animals, and even then, governments have written strict regulations to govern how they are used. The classic oil adjuvant, called Freund's Complete Adjuvant, is considered too inhumane to even inject into animals. It does a terrific job of stimulating the immune system, though. Unfortunately, Freund's Complete Adjuvant can cause permanent organ damage and incurable disease. As early as the 1930s, these oil additives were notorious for inducing illness. By the 1950s, scientists knew these illnesses were specifically autoimmune. Today that is their chief use in research—inducing disease instead of preventing it. Scientists studying autoimmune disease cannot wait around for its spontaneous appearance in a lab animal; they inject it with Freund's Complete Adjuvant to reproduce autoimmunity on demand. Oil adjuvants made with squalene equally effective at this job, and regrettably according to Dutch scientists, equally inhumane. , ,
Autoimmune diseases are chronic and progressively debilitating ailments; some, like multiple sclerosis and lupus, can be fatal. They occur when the immune system loses its ability to distinguish what is "self" from what is foreign. Under normal circumstances, your immune system ignores the constituents of your own body; immunologists call this "tolerance." But if tolerance is broken, the immune system turns relentlessly self-destructive, attacking the body it is supposed to defend.

Adjuvants can break tolerance. In 1956, Dr. Jules Freund, the Hungarian born scientist who gave his name to the adjuvant he created, warned that animals injected with Freund's developed terrible conditions: allergic aspermatogenesis (stoppage of sperm production), experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (the animal version of multiple sclerosis) and allergic neuritis (inflammation of nerves that can lead to paralysis), allergic uveitis (an inflammation in the eye that can cause blindness). There was no reversing any of these conditions.

Scientists are still unsure why oil adjuvants do this. One theory is that oils have the ability to hyperactivate the immune system. "The cause is probably that when injecting these molecules, you create a chaos in the immune system," says Dr. Johnny C. Lorentzen, and immunologist with the Karolinska Institute, which awards the annual Nobel Prize for Medicine. He says these oils induce "an extremely powerful response," so powerful, in fact, that the immune system goes haywire and starts attacking things it would otherwise leave alone. Another possibility, which has not been explored very much, is that this harmful phenomenon actually has something to do with one of the greatest distinguishing characteristics of the immune system—its specificity. Over eons in time, this extraordinarily elegant and powerful system has evolved to respond very precisely to what it deems potentially harmful to the body. Our bodies contain all sorts of oily molecules. It could be that when an oil is injected, the immune system actually responds to it with a high degree of precision - just as it responds to everything else - but because the adjuvant resembles too closely those oils found in the body, the immune system begins attacking those too. In immunology this is called a "cross reaction." Neither proposition - chaos or specificity - has been proven so far. But however oils do their damage, it is well known that they do. (Excerpt from Vaccine A)

This should certainly make us question the safety of the vaccine from GSK. Especially after hearing the news that German politicians were offered better vaccine. (Spiegel online)
The vaccine is safe enough for the commoners but not for more important people?

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

2009-11-02T20:38:00.004+01:00

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. (Wikipedia)

The propaganda blitz surrounding the H1N1 virus seems to know no limits. The number of people the media "estimates" have been infected by the swine flu are 80 000 so far in Sweden, according to a recent headline, yet they do not bother to actually test all suspected cases to really make sure that it is in fact swine flu. The enormous fear mongering does nothing more than to create a pandemic of hypochondria. People call the health line for the slightest symptom and get their diagnosis over the phone. Then they become one more person to join the statistics. But in fact, only a small portion of suspected swine flu cases are the flu at all when one scrutinizes it.

In late July, the CDC abruptly advised states to stop testing for H1N1 flu, and stopped counting individual cases. The rationale given for the CDC guidance to forego testing and tracking individual cases was: why waste resources testing for H1N1 flu when the government has already confirmed there's an epidemic?

Some public health officials privately disagreed with the decision to stop testing and counting, telling CBS News that continued tracking of this new and possibly changing virus was important because H1N1 has a different epidemiology, affects younger people more than seasonal flu and has been shown to have a higher case fatality rate than other flu virus strains.

[...] The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico. (CBC News)

As the statistics show, in California, 86% tested negative for the flu, 12% had the seasonal flu, and 2% had the H1N1 flu (out of 13,704 specimens). Tests in other states show similar results. One can therefore assume that the cases of swine flu are much fewer than reported in the US and all over the world. Just think about it, have we heard at all in the media about how many that have contracted the seasonal flu this year? We haven't because there seems to be none. All we hear about is the swine flu.

The last few days everything has intensified as the media starts reporting on children and pregnant women dying from the swine flu, and we become so swept away by these tragic events that we deem evidence and further research into these claims unwarranted.

One child's death in Canada has been held up by the media as a warning to parents who consider not vaccinating their children. One claims that he died from contracting the swine flu. However, some experts suspect that he could have died of something else.

Evan Frustaglio did test positive for H1N1, but Doctor Alain Poirier says the fact that his health went downhill so quickly has led some experts to wonder whether there was some other factor in his death. "It could be something else," Poirier says. "It has been described as, he had H1N1, he died suddenly. There's been no other test to verify what was the actual cause of death, like an autopsy."Poirier says some experts are speculating that meningitis or a bacterial infection may have actually killed him. We will never know, he says, because the teenager's grieving family has chosen not to allow a further investigation into his death. (CJAD Newstalk radio)

In Sweden, we today learnt about a 3 year old boy who passed away after contracting the swine flu. The parents went to the hospital on Wednesday (or Tuesday) as they were worried for their son who hadn't eaten or drunk in 5 days! He had a fever, diarrhea and was vomiting. He was sent home with fluid replacement. Obviously, he should have been admitted to the hospital right away! He started having trouble breathing on Friday and the parents brought him back to the hospital, but they didn't manage to save his life. (Aftonbladet) Obviously, the medical staff failed to do their job as he must have been severely dehydrated on Wednesday. Considering also that he had a muscle disease, he was clearly at great risk and in no shape to be sent home. What they should investigate is negligence on the hospital's part. That killed him, not swine flu.

Of course, as Sweden obligated herself to buy the vaccine in the event of a pandemic as early as 2006, she now needs to find ways to get people to accept the unnecessary and potentially dangerous vaccine not to make a complete fool of herself. The bird flu that killed half of those who contracted it is not at all comparable to this outbreak. But this was probably what Sweden had in mind when they signed the contract to have vaccines sent from Glaxo Smith Kline. But with the lowering of what counts as a pandemic by the WHO, the seasonal flu fits the description. Yet, we don't hear about any plans for mass vaccination against that.

There is a lot of politics and sensationalism involved in the reporting of swine flu cases, but very little attachment to reality. Evidence is twisted to make swine flu out to be worse than it is whereas the problems associated with the vaccine is blamed on pre-existing conditions in those receiving it.

If you can't beat them, ridicule them

2009-10-26T20:14:00.005+01:00

Now that polls show how fewer and fewer people are willing to take the vaccine and the media finds it harder and harder to convince people to take the vaccine, they turn to below-the belt tactics against the conspiracy theorists to sway the public opinion. Their tactics are identical to those used by the media against 911 Truthers.

What they are saying is basically that believing the conspiracy theories that the vaccine is bad for you and that the dangers of the swine flu have been extremely exaggerated by the authorities borders to mental illness. According to a pseudo-psychologist, Anne Grefberg, people who fall for these conspiracy theories do so because of fear which causes us to behave irrationally. With limited information, we make decisions based on emotions. Our insecurity leads us to believe in conspiracy theories in order to feel more safe. (Aftonbladet, Rädsla föder konspirationsteorier)

This is bull shit of course. It doesn't exactly make me feel more secure knowing that the pharmaceutical companies, the WHO and our government are lying to us about the severity of the swine flu and that the vaccine has side effects that they try to hide. Just like it doesn't make me feel very secure seeing all the security they have at the airports since I know that 911 was an inside job. I would feel much more secure if I believed that it was actually some Muslim terrorists who had managed to hijack the airplanes and crash them into the twin towers and building 7. The odds of it happening were minuscule to begin with, and with all the added security at airports now, it would be virtually impossible for it to happen again. On the other hand, believing it was an inside job, I know that no security changes in the world can stop the plans of people working on the inside.

By ridiculing those who don't blindly trust the authorities, they can make the most intelligent people feel like there is something wrong with them for not following the herd. When they lack convincing evidence, it is much easier to focus on nonessential things to divert attention from the real issues. Because if truth be told, those who blindly trust their government are the fearful people who are terrified of what they will discover if they dig a bit deeper. They think it is better to just take the vaccine and keep eyes and ears shut. We who have the courage to question and research to get to the hard facts are not mentally ill; logic is not a mental illness.

Swine flu vaccine deaths in Sweden

2009-10-22T21:25:00.007+02:00

Alright. After all the conflicting messages we have been getting, those who still think that the vaccine is safe and will save us are free to roll up their sleeves. I won't feel sorry for them if they did it out of their own free will. What troubles me more is that a lot of children are soon to become vaccinated with two adult doses of the vaccine, and they can't decide this for themselves.

After reading in Aftonbladet about two deaths from the Pandemrix swine flu vaccine in ill elderly people (they put people aged 55-65 into the elderly category), I can't help to wonder how this vaccine will affect the short and long term health of children if they become vaccinated. Läkemedelsverket says that the vaccine "may be too strong" because of the adjuvants that are in it. Also, few of the people in the clinical study belonged to a "risk group" making it a completely experimental vaccine. And first out to test it are the sick, elderly and the young...it disgusts me.

Oh, and if you thought it couldn't possibly get more absurd, this is what they plan to air in a tv-show for pre-schoolers. If this isn't propaganda, I don't know what is.

Weather control a reality?

2009-10-19T22:16:00.008+02:00

I have been sceptical towards the theory that man can control weather by means of spreading chemicals in the sky, so called chem trails. But as more and more stories surface, I have come to think that it is possible that we are crazy enough to think that we have the right to control weather. I guess, if the technology is there, someone with a God complex won't be able to resist the urge to experiment with the health of our earth and all those living in its biosphere. There were a lot of rumours surrounding the summer Olympics in Beijing about how they would use weather control to guarantee good weather on critical days. I also watched an interesting documentary on weather warfare from the History Chanel.

Today, Aftonbladet published a short note about how the Mayor of Moscow wanted to save money on snow removal of the streets by releasing chemicals in the air to stop heavy snowfall. I also found the same information on The Russian Times.

Mayor Yury Luzhkov is a long-time proponent of fighting clouds by spraying liquid nitrogen, silver, or cement particles into the cloud mass, which forces precipitation to fall before it can reach the capital and spoil holidays like Victory Day and City Day.
(The Russian Times)

Yum, liquid nitrogen, silver and cement particles seems exactly like something I need for a varied diet...

I also wonder how it affects us when our immune system has been weakened by poisonous vaccines. Perhaps weather warfare is still just a wet dream of the power hungry elite of the world, but perhaps it is already occurring all around us without our knowing...

The news today: Much ado about nothing?

2009-10-02T23:47:00.008+02:00

I can't help to feel discouraged when I read the news. For every day that passes by, we seem to be getting closer and closer to the edge of the cliff, and we are heading there full speed.

There is such an immense amount of absurdity out there with the worst kind being that surrounding the so called swine flu. There is so much propaganda out there. The swine flu hasn't shown any signs of being more deadly than the seasonal flu, yet we are being bombarded with messages about how dangerous it is and how we need to show solidarity and get vaccinated to save humanity. They have started the vaccination campaign in Gothenburg now, but the authorities are alarmed that so few people are interested in getting vaccinated. At least I have done my share to spread awareness and keep those close to me from getting vaccinated.

There are a few points concerning the swine flu and the inconsistencies in information we have been getting that I would like to address:

1. They claim that so many people have contracted it that it can be considered a pandemic. The thing is that everybody you hear about having gotten the swine flu have gotten their diagnosis over the phone. The symptoms for the swine flu are EXACTLY THE SAME as those for the seasonal flu, so it is completely impossible to distinguish between the two of them without thorough tests. But all those who get the flu are asked to stay at home, so nobody gets a proper diagnosis. My conclusion is that the statistics must be completely false. Not all cases of flu can possibly be swine flu.

2. Pregnant women were told that they were so much at risk if they got the swine flu that they would be among the first to get vaccinated. Yet recently, pregnant women here in Västra Götaland were told not to get vaccinated as it could be dangerous for the foetus. Why the sudden 180 degree turn? Perhaps they know too little about this vaccine to give sound advise. Also, children under 3 years of age will not be vaccinated. It is absurd then to even consider vaccinating pregnant women. Who is most sensitive, a foetus or a 3 year old child?

3. At first, we were told that we needed two shots in order to be fully protected. Now they say that one is enough for most people. Only those in high risk groups should be getting the vaccine twice. Why would only high risk groups need to shots? Shouldn't one shot be as effective in everybody who takes it? How is it that half the dose is suddenly enough?

4. The media claims over and over again that the vaccine is perfectly safe, not even mentioning the serious side effects. Even if they are rare, they still exist, thus the vaccine is not "perfectly safe".

5. So the swine flu has killed very few people. The WHO still needs to get people to take the vaccine. They therefore scare us by saying that the virus might mutate. Question: if the virus mutates how effective could a vaccine be?

6. The people who get the seasonal flu shot have been found to be more likely to get swine flu. Are we killing our immunity system perhaps? (Global Research)

The media hve been utterly ineffective in addressing the reasons for why so many refuse to take the vaccine. They have also hidden important information on adjuvants to the vaccines such as Squalene. These are thought to be responsible for the so called Gulf War Syndrome. Only American soldiers who were vaccinated got this. Its Allies did not.

I do not think that the vaccine will kill off 80% of the population, but I believe that it will do people harm and that some may die. I also find it very probable that those who take the vaccine will end up being sicker than if they had never taken it. I hope that we will realize in the future how we were complete fools in believing that flu vaccines would cure us.

Last week, a professor I had spent a greater deal of the lesson trying to convince us that we should all take the vaccine out of solidarity. In order for it to be effective, 80% would need to take it. Well, if there is one thing I would like to have control over it is my health, and nobody gets to tell me what to do. If 80% decide to take it and we end up with a mutated dangerous swine flu virus, I won't be grateful towards those who took the vaccine. The virus will die out on its own if we do nothing. For once, maybe we should let nature run its course and stand up against those who want to keep us addicted to medication by creating our ailments.

My sister didn't die of the flu

2009-09-06T04:40:00.003+02:00

My sister got the flu "off season". She was just laid off as a nurse, and she has no unemployment insurance or sick pay. She hasn't been to the hospital but has fought it through herself without help from Tamiflu. May I add that you would have a hard time finding a more committed nurse than her, and it is a shame that the hospital hasn't kept her.

Instead of spending money on qualified personnel, the government has opted for wasting money on a harmful vaccine which will only feed the stuffed pockets of the Pharmaceutical companies. According to this news article the district of Västerbotten (where my sister worked) will be getting 30 million kronor from the state to pay for vaccinations against the swine flu.

If this money had instead been diverted towards paying for nurses, it could have paid 100 nurses making 25 000 kronor per month for a year, or 10 nurses making 25 000 for 10 years. Simple facts that nobody cares to think about. And add to this that most laid off nurses will be paid 80% of their salary for a year for not working, and after that will be on social welfare from the state, the money doesn't really seem to be well spent. Why spend money on having qualified people on welfare instead of paying them to work?

They fire teachers and nurses while spending billions on useless vaccines...and they won't even have enough nurses to give the vaccines. Less nurses equals more deaths and less teachers equals more problem kids...maybe they should worry more about that than about swine flu. My sister survived it with no vaccine or visit to the doctor...not even any sick pay or Tamiflu.

In Economics, there is something called cost-benefit analysis. Most people don't realize that every time the government spends money on one health care issue, less money is spent somewhere else. So when the government spends billions on swine flu others may die because resources have been diverted from that particular medical field. I would like to see an Economist do an analysis of the true costs of the vaccination program. I am sure that the costs outweigh the benefits in this case.

This is just a thought...maybe someone should care to look into it.

Evil under the sun

2009-08-17T11:15:00.004+02:00

Agatha Christie is a genius, and yesterday I rediscovered it. I had read the novel "Evil under the sun" previously, and yet, while watching the televised version of it, I was unable to figure out who had committed the murder. She is an expert at throwing you off into the wrong direction with all the simultaneous plots. It takes the works of Monsieur Poirot's little gray cells to untangle the the mystery and to separate fact from fiction.

What especially interested me about this novel was the parallels one may draw to current events. The story starts off with Poirot being convinced to go for a healthy vacation to an island after it was thought that he had had a heart attack. The vacation, however, turns out to be not as relaxed as his doctor may have hoped. From the moment he steps on to the island, he has the feeling that one woman's life is in danger and that he might need to prevent the murder as opposed to solve one, which is the usual case.

Here is the first part if you feel like watching it:

Well, as is expected in an Agatha Christie novel, a murder is committed. The woman who is murdered is Alena Stewart. The big mystery is that the man, who was most likely to have committed the crime, Patric Redfern, could not have, as he had solid alibi. The ingenious twist to the story is that the woman discovered at the beach is in fact not Alena, but Mrs Redfern. She is just pretending to be a dead Alena. The rumor spreads that Alena is dead when she in fact is not. Instead she is strangled a few minutes later as Mr Redfern meets up with her is a cave. She is then placed in the same position at the beach as Alena had been laying at, and nobody is able to figure out what had happened.

So a murder is committed after the time of death...this means that the murder could have been prevented if someone had looked into the issue before running off in panic to look for help. My point is that I think this happens more often than we think, and that is is occurring right now at a global scale. Summer is a time when people are carefree and especially August is a popular holiday period. But there is "Evil under the sun" as we speak. Right now rumors are spreading that a killer virus is responsible for the death of many and that many more will fall victims to it. At the same time, the Pharmaceutical companies are rushing to produce enough vaccine to combat it. Perhaps nobody has even died yet from the flu, but when fall comes, more will fall ill and perhaps die, and when this happens, we will be sure to blame the swine flu for this. Perhaps though, if someone had used their little gray cells, we wouldn't panic and we would have stopped and examined the case, and found out that we were actually in no danger. When people panic, they become easy victims, and thus fail to see that no murder has been committed. They also fail to draw parallels to past events (like the Swine flu hype of 1976).

Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction, and we could all need a few more Poirots in this world, because yes, there is evil under the sun.

"Of course the GMO foods are safe; Monsanto tells me so."

2009-08-07T22:25:00.006+02:00

Most people are probably a bit skeptical towards genetically modified plants, and for a good reason too. The long term effects of the consumption of GMO is not known, there are dangers to our ecosystem involved in the cultivation of GMO plants and the GMO producers gain tremendously by creating a monopoly on their seeds. Signing a contract with Monsanto is comparable to giving your soul to the Devil. For a few years of prosperity (if even that) you are under the complete control of Monsanto. Once you have GMO crop on your field, there is no turning back. And guess what, your neighbour who grows organic crops may also find himself enslaved to Monsanto. Because seeds spread, and once they end up in your field, you are growing Monsanto crop!

And if you thought, that at least the GMO's and the effect they have on us are rigorously studied by independent researchers, so they can't be that bad, well, then you were wrong.

An editorial in the respected American scientific monthly magazine, Scientific American, August 2009 reveals the shocking and alarming reality behind the proliferation of GMO products throughout the food chain of the planet since 1994. There are no independent scientific studies published in any reputed scientific journal in the world for one simple reason. It is impossible to independently verify that GMO crops such as Monsanto Roundup Ready Soybeans or MON8110 GMO maize perform as the company claims, or that, as the company also claims, that they have no harmful side effects because the GMO companies forbid such tests!

That’s right. As a precondition to buy seeds, either to plant for crops or to use in research study, Monsanto and the gene giant companies must first sign an End User Agreement with the company. For the past decade, the period when the greatest proliferation of GMO seeds in agriculture has taken place, Monsanto, Pioneer (DuPont) and Syngenta require anyone buying their GMO seeds to sign an agreement that explicitly forbids that the seeds be used for any independent research. Scientists are prohibited from testing a seed to explore under what conditions it flourishes or even fails. They cannot compare any characteristics of the GMO seed with any other GMO or non-GMO seeds from another company. Most alarming, they are prohibited from examining whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended side-effects either in the environment or in animals or humans.

The only research which is permitted to be published in reputable scientific peer-reviewed journals are studies which have been pre-approved by Monsanto and the other industry GMO firms. (GMO scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Foods on Humans)

If Monsanto was so sure that the seeds could cause us and the environment no harm, they shouldn't fear independent research. In what other industry is it possible to immunize yourself from public scrutiny? I can't think of many others... except for perhaps the Pharmaceutical industry (See this article). We seem to think that independent research is extremely important, but when it comes to the things that matter the most, our health and the future of this planet, we allow the bullies to override us. So who knows, in a few years, our planet will be dominated by Monsanto crops, we will all be sick, and then, thank God that we have our pills from the Pharmaceutical companies :) They have our best interest in mind of course...

Spot on again Peter Schiff!

2009-08-04T12:00:00.004+02:00

This economist needs to be paid a lot of attention. While politicians and the the American people are hiding their heads in the sand, he is actually trying to make us aware of what needs to be done to save ourselves. Of course, I care more about how the Swedish economy is doing than the American one, and in a way the Americans deserve what is coming for screwing us over, but it still angers me when I see those idiots in Government continuing to keep the public in the dark while supporting businesses that should be going bankrupt instead of actually building up a good foundation for real economic growth. Time to drop your free market mask, America! In reality you are one of the most socialist countries in the world.

Another attempt to implant RFID chips in us

2009-08-03T15:20:00.003+02:00

In a previous post Why accepting the FDA approved microchip might not be such a great idea I shed light over the potential misuses involved with implantable microchips that have been introduced as a tool for storing a person's medical information. As far as I know, its uses are limited to the medical field and to track pets. But its potential use extends far beyond this.

You must have a lot of trust in Government to accept a microchip in your body. I certainly don't have that level of trust, and nobody should have it. Especially considering that they seem to want to grab every opportunity they can get to limit our freedoms.

Now there is actual discussions to impose airport workers with mandatory biometrics and even implanted RFID chips.

Congress is moving quickly to put into motion measures that will ensure airport employees are subjected to stricter security checks. Everyone from Restaurant employees to airline mechanics could soon be forced to provide biometric finger and iris scans and may even face the possibility of being implanted with a microchip. (Congress proposed implanting airport workers with RFID chips)

Of course, the goal of this is just to slowly bring about acceptance for the microchip in society. It is probably unlikely that they will implement it now, but by bringing it up over and over again in the news and in films, they are creating the foundation for something bigger. Wouldn't it for example be handy to distinguish those who have gotten the flu shot from those who haven't gotten it in some way?

Perhaps they need a better excuse before implementing it, but I bet we haven't heard the last of this story.

Have we done everything to make sure that the vaccine against swine flu is safe?

2009-07-27T13:29:00.014+02:00

Today, we got an e-mail from Läkemedelsverket in response to a letter we sent concerning how Baxter had contaminated its vaccines with live bird flu. The representative claimed that there was no need to question the safety of the products from Baxter since they had gotten information from BAXTER that the infected vaccines only had been meant to be used for laboratory control and research purposes.

This is the letter in full in Swedish:

Läkemedelsverket har mottagit ert brev angående information kring inträffad händelse med kontaminerat influensavaccin från Baxter.

Läkemedelsverket erhöll i februari i år information från såväl Baxter som EMEA angående den inträffade händelsen.

Det infekterade materialet endast var avsett för laborativ kontroll och forskningsändamål. Det var därför inte någon fara för patienter som erhåller företagets ordinarie läkemedel. Diskussioner har även förts med EMEA för att få kunskap i hur andra myndigheter inom EU har agerat i frågan.

Baserat på denna information anser Läkemedelverket att någon ytterligare åtgärd gentemot Baxter eller företagets partihandelstillstånd i Sverige för närvarande inte behöver vidtas.

På Läkemedelsverkets vägnar

Tor Gråberg

Tor Gråberg
Chefsinspektör, Enhetschef
Inspektionsenheten

Box 26, 751 03 Uppsala
Besöksadress: Dag Hammarskjöldsväg 42
Telefon: 018 - 17 26 24, växel: 018 - 17 46 00

English translation:

The Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket) has received your letter regarding information surrounding the occurred event with contaminated influenza vaccines from Baxter.

In February of this year, The Medical Products Agency received information from Baxter as well as EMEA regarding the occurred incident.

The infected material was only meant to be used for laboratory control and research purposes. Hence, there was no danger to patients who obtain the company’s ordinary medical products. Discussions have also been carried out with EMEA in order to obtain knowledge about how other agencies in the EU have acted in this matter.

Based on this information, The Medical Products Agency deems that no further measure against Baxter or the company’s wholesale trade license in Sweden is necessary for the time being.

On behalf of The Medical Products Agency,

Tor Gråberg

Tor Gråberg
Chief Inspector, Branch head
Inspection Branch

Box 26, 751 03 Uppsala
Visiting address: Dag Hammarsköldsväg 42
Telephone: 018 - 17 26 24, switchboard: 018 - 17 46 00

And if you trust that the EMEA have thoroughly examined Baxter, you should read this article from The Guardian. "The European Medicines Agency (EMA), the drug regulatory body for the EU, is accelerating the approval process for the vaccine, and countries including Britain, Greece, France and Sweden plan to start using it as soon as it is cleared. The most vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and young children, will be given priority." So without proper testing, the EMA is going ahead and vaccinating those most vulnerable. They seem a lot more interested in getting the vaccine out on the market as soon as possible than to investigate Baxter's fishy past.

Baxter has enough of the H1N1 A vaccine to distribute to the United Kingdom, Ireland and New Zealand.

We know too little about the safety of Baxter's vaccines and too much about Baxter's history to go ahead and vaccinate children and infants.

It also seems like Sweden has lowered its vaccine standards when it comes to the H1N1 vaccine.

Normally, Sweden doesn't allow mercury in its vaccines, but according to this Swedish news article from Göteborgsposten, the vaccines that Sweden have ordered from GlaxoSmithKline WILL contain mercury. So we are going to vaccinate children and pregnant women first with vaccines that have not been properly tested and that also contain mercury, which we all know is really bad for anyone, especially children and foetuses (even in low doses).

In the end of this article from Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, a "vaccine expert" answers 4 questions regarding the Swine Flu vaccine. The vaccine has not been approved to be given to children under the age of 18, so on the question if it will be tested before given to children his answer is that they will perform a few tests, but that they won't know the results until afterwards. And on the question of if all children will be vaccinated his answer is that all children will be vaccinated down to those of two months of age.

Déjà vu

2009-07-17T04:58:00.004+02:00

If history provides us with any guidance, we should caution ourselves before accepting the Swine Flu Shot. Most people may have forgotten about the last outbreak of Swine Flu that occurred in 1976. And since our memory is usually quite short, it doesn't surprise me that the Swine Flu is being hyped up to the same degree as during the last outbreak with talk of compulsory vaccinations but no consideration to possible side effects.

Below is a clip from CBS 60 minutes reporting on those who fell victims to the Swine Flu vaccination shot. They had claimed that the vaccine had been tested when in fact it had not, and they hid the information about the possible side effects like nerve diseases.

Swine Flu 1976 & Propaganda
Uploaded by Dianequiose-4. - More video blogs and vloggers.

Time to implement Cybersecurity Act?

2009-07-13T01:05:00.005+02:00

The cyber attack from North Korea could hardly have come at a more convenient time. I have previously written about the Cybersecurity Act in The war over the Internet , and how they claim that it is meant to protect the States from cyber attacks and gives the President full authority to shut down Internet traffic to and from critical infrastructure information systems or networks. Actually, it is martial law on the Internet.

A determined propaganda blitz is well underway as the government sets the stage for the passage of Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced in the Senate earlier this year. If passed, it will allow Obama to shut down the internet and private networks. The legislation also calls for the government to have the authority to demand security data from private networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access. In other words, the bill allows the government to impose authoritarian control over electronic communications. (Global Research, Blitz of Cyber Attack)

So was North Korea really responsible for the attack? It seems almost too good to be true since Obama now has a justification to implement the Cybersecurity Act.

Joe Stewart, a researcher with SecureWorks who examined the code, told Computerworld that the botnet "does not use typical antivirus evasion techniques and does not appear to have been written by a professional malware writer."

Stewart told the publication that it is unusual to see low-profile state web sites being hit. "Who goes around targeting a site like the FAA or the U.S. Treasury? It's not something that most people would think to attack."

When contacted Friday for an update, Stewart told Computerworld there is "still zero evidence of North Korean involvement." Though relatively lengthy in duration, Stewart believes the attack could have been launched by a single person.

Who then might attack "low-profile web sites" such as the Federal Trade Commission for example? ( Global Research, "Rogue Hacker")

Apart from the threat from North Korea justifying the implementation of the Cybersecurity Act, the Obama administration will also be able to ride the wave and take advantage of people's fear of North Korea's attacks to fasttrack Einstein 3.

As Antifascist Calling reported July 6, plans are already afoot to roll-out Einstein 3, a Bush-era surveillance program to screen state computer traffic on private-sector networks.
In partnership with the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency, communications, defense and security firms such as AT&T, General Dynamics, L3 Communications, MCI, Qwest, Sprint and Verizon stand to make billions from contracts under the government's Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Services (MTIPS) program with its built-in "Einstein domain."( Global Research, "Rogue Hacker")

So Obama would definitely benefit from a Cyberattack from North Korea, in many ways.

President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren advocates forced abortions and sterilizations as a means of population control

2009-07-11T20:51:00.011+02:00

It doesn't seem like Obama is very concerned about appointing very controversial persons to his cabinet. It is almost as if he is testing to see how much he can get away with because there is no way that Holdren's past could have passed under the radar. On the contrary. It is more likely that he was appointed because of his ideas on population reduction.

He proves to us that he is a true eugenicist in "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment" which he wrote 1977 and has never distanced himself from. In fact, the book appears behind him in this photo.

Some of his suggestions for reducing the world's population:

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world. (Prisonplanet)

This is a quote from page 942-3:

Toward a Planetary Regime

“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
If you were president, would this guy be your choice for top science adviser?!?! It is clear that he is not working in the interest of the people he officially was elected to serve, i.e. the American population. Instead he is working in the interest of the guys behind the scene, appointing mad men to his cabinet who dream of a world where a world regime controls every aspect of our lives, down to who gets the right to reproduce.

What he wrote should definitely not be taken lightly. Perhaps the reason why Hitler did so well was because people didn't really care to actually read what he wrote in "Mein kampf" or take it seriously.

Massive vaccination campaign in Sweden...have we all gone mad?

2009-07-11T08:55:00.005+02:00

It seems like we should be more concerned about our leaders' insanity than Swine Flu considering the amount of money they are willing to spend on a vaccination campaign in the midst of a global financial depression.

A Swedish newspaper reported that they want 1.5 million people from the district of Västra Götaland to get vaccinated in September, which I assume includes basically everybody. I live there and I didn't even know that Västra Götaland had such a large population! In order to be able to do so, they would be able to perform vaccinations at schools, mobile facilities and sport arenas since the hospitals wouldn't be able to handle to vaccinate everybody.

According to the article, without the vaccination between 300 000 and 600 000 people will fall ill (I am not even going to start speculating in how they came up with that number). So far 19 people have had the Swine Flu in Västra Götaland (since it is pretty much indistinguishable from the normal flu I don't know if that is even correct). So from 19 cases, we expect it to jump to 600 000 cases?

We all seem to be jumping on the bandwaggon without considering the risks. We should all also be asking ourselves where this virus came from (like i have written about in previous articles, 1 2).

I have survived the flu before, and I would prefer to stick this one out too. After all, it will help me to build up resistance and make me more likely to be able to fight off future flus. A vaccine will only weaken my immune system. Nothing is more important than our health and the health of our children. Don't be intimidated by threats.

Iran: The US diversion from internal problems

2009-07-09T07:35:00.007+02:00

The US have have been incredible successful so far in keeping their leaky ship afloat...simply by diverting attention from the problems they are having to external (often imaginary) threats.

GlobalEuropean Anticipation Bulletin wrote as early as March 2007 about the looming crisis and how it would be pushing Washington to confront Iran.

The US entry into the « very great depression » generates a stream of domestic crises: political (daily oppositions between Congress and President), economic (entry into recession), financial (bursting of housing-financial bubble) and social (millions of Americans put out on the street). Such a critical domestic situation is pushing Washington to the confrontation with Iran, in order to divert the nation’s attention from internal problems.

Well, the crisis is definitely here, and I fear that with the extensive reporting on the Iranian "election fraud" and the post-election violence, the US might just have found a good excuse to intervene.

I recently came across an analysis paper published by think tank "The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at The Brooklyn Institution" in June 2009, titled Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran. The paper has been reviewed by the CIA to prevent disclosure of confidential information.

The authors discuss four options to tackle Iran: The Diplomatic Options, The Military Options, Regime Change or Containment. The military option includes, among others, "allowing or encouraging Israeli military strike" and the regime change option includes , among others, "supporting a popular uprising".

Since the paper is 156 pages long, I have not had time to read through all the information, but I have picked up some quite interesting suggestions by scanning though the paper. Starting on page 66, the paper presents an overview of the policy involving toppling through invasion. They state that invading Iran through a ground invasion would be daunting in "the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation" (p. 66).

Their dream seems to be if Iran would provoke the united States by an Iranian-backed terrorist attack as sizable as 9/11.

For purposes of this analytic exercise, we assume that a U.S. invasion of Iran is not triggered by an overt, incontrovertible, and unforgivable act of aggression—something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the planes bore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship. First, this seems exceptionally unlikely given Iran’s history of avoiding such acts, at least since the end of the Iran-Iraq War. Second, were that ever to happen, the circumstances of an invasion would become almost easy—the United States would suddenly have enormous domestic and (perhaps grudging) international support for undertaking an invasion. Indeed, the entire question of “options” would become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself? Beyond such a blatant act of of inexcusable aggression, the question of provocation gets murky. Most European, Asian, and Middle Eastern publics are dead set against any American military action against Iran derived from the current differences between Iran and the international community—let alone Iran and the United States. Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds. For many democracies and some fragile autocracies to which Washington would be looking for support, this public antipathy is likely to prove decisive. (p. 66)

To even consider such a horrible thing as something positive is disgraceful and shows how this think tank has very little concern over the value of human lives and looks more at the interests of the power horny elite.

The paper goes on in examining US options if they are unable to get international support for an invasion and stresses the importance of support from the American people as a partial conscription might be necessary.

Because the military requirements of the occupation and reconstruction of Iran are so daunting, and the likelihood of international support in this scenario appears so low, the first and most important requirement would be the overwhelming political support of the American people for an invasion. Simply put, compared to U.S. involvement in Iraq, the invasion and reconstruction of Iran is likely to be a more taxing task—even assuming that the United States avoids repeating the mistakes of Iraq—and there will be even less foreign assistance to accomplish it. This means that the president would have to have such strong and enduring support from the American people that he would be able to conduct the invasion and occupation of Iran employing essentially only American resources and in the face of widespread international animosity. He might need to mobilize fully the National Guard as well as the Army, Marine, and possibly Navy Reserves and keep them in uniform for months or even years if there is considerable Iranian resistance, as there may well be. In worst-case scenarios, the president might even need to ask the American people to accept some form of limited conscription. If the occupation of Iran were to go badly, there might be considerable American casualties for long periods of time—possibly even more than in Iraq at its worst because of the more difficult terrain, the likely greater hostility of the populace, and the greater proficiency in guerrilla warfare of the Iranian military. If the president can secure this kind of support, an invasion of Iran is a viable option. Without such support, the invasion and occupation of Iran would likely be as mismanaged and tragic as it was in Iraq from 2003 to 2006. (p. 71)

I would hope that the American people are smart enough not to support an invasion. And if Iran was able to carry out a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 (with many casualties), my hope is that the Americans can still see though the scam. Why the hell should it be OK for the US to allow such an attack in order to invade Iran? It is absolutely disgusting.

On page 84, some mind-blowing sentences appear. They discuss how hard it would be to convince the International community that there are no other ends but to invade Iran through air strikes.

The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

The paper also addresses that Iran probably never will be a threat to the United States, but on the other hand, it could be a threat to Israel. And as we know, Israel and the United States are like two peas in a pot.

Crisis after crisis has arisen between Iran and the United States but Iran has never been and almost certainly never will be an existential threat to the United States. It harbors no territorial designs on the United States, has never conducted a terrorist operation aimed at the American homeland, and, even should it acquire nuclear weapons, lacks the delivery systems to threaten the United States directly. Further, its economy is anemic, and even if substantially reformed, will probably never provide the base for Iran to make itself a challenger to the United States on par with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, or Communist China. But for Israel, Iran is a much more dangerous opponent—it is close and threatening. There is a virtual consensus in Israel that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. (p. 89)

It is clear from discussions with Israeli military and intelligence officials, and from numerous press leaks and reports that Israel is well under way in planning for a military operation to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said in 2007 that “the things that we do behind the scenes, far from the public eye, are far more important than the slogan charade,” implying that Israeli covert capabilities are already hard at work trying to cope with the Iranian threat and preparing to attack it if they must. (p. 90)

The Israeli option has both pros and cons that are addressed. But perhaps the more interesting part of the paper, in the light of current events, comes when they start to discuss the possibility of bolstering regime change.

[I]n theory the United States has several options if it seeks a new Iranian government. In the past, the United States engineered a coup to restore a government of its liking there and in recent years, Washington has supported programs designed to bolster a democratic movement in Iran. Prominent voices have also called for helping Iranian oppositionists overthrow the regime and for using Iran’s minority groups to undermine the government. (p. 101)

The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. [...] U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. [...] U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership. (p. 105)

For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime. Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion. (p. 150)

I have just addressed some of the suggestions put forward in the paper as to how Iran may be destabilized. It is no surprise that the US has been working on this for quite some time and that they have been involved in coups before and would not rule out that possibility again. Based on the paper, do you think that the US may be involved in the current situation in Iran?

They could never do such a thing against us?

2009-07-07T10:16:00.008+02:00

When faced with indications that their government was complacent in conspiracies (such as 9/11 and 7/7), people often argue that, although the evidence might be convincing, it would be a complete impossibility for the government to carry out something on such a huge scale without the people finding out about it. So many people would have to be involved in it, and someone would talk. Well, first of all, we've been tricked before. Just take a look at historical events (such as the Reichstag fire). False flag terrorism is nothing new. Sure, many years have passed, but we still have leaders determined that the end justifies the means, and peoples' mentality that their government is there to protect them and would never do them any harm still keeps them seeing life in pink instead of in its true colours.

Another important aspect in human psychology, that many people seem to ignore, is the fact that we tend to act in ways that keep us from getting harmed or killed, and we enjoy financial stability. If it hadn't been for this small aspect, the Mafia would not be as successful as it is today. People simply don't speak out against the Mafia for fear of being killed or having their family killed, and the Mafia has proven that they are fully capable of carrying out their threats.

What I am getting to here is that governments have the resources to carry out horrendous false flag terrorists attacks and they have also done so in the past, and they obviously wouldn't be afraid to kill off people who come in their way if necessary ( how many have been killed in the war in Iraq for example?). If I had insider information and I knew that someone would go after me and possibly kill me or my family, I sure as hell would shut up. It would hurt to get some money from them in the process either...

Here is an interesting article from the UK Daily Express were they write that weapons inspector Dr. David Kelly was writing a book "exposing highly damaging government secrets". But he mysteriously died before publishing the book and it was claimed that he has committed suicide. If I was to commit suicide, I would probably finish my book before doing so...

Anyone willing to stand up and expose the truth is a true hero. But there aren't many out there, and those who do are often ridiculed or taken care of.

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler
Mein Kampf

The Pirate Party setting sail for Canada?

2009-07-05T20:13:00.007+02:00

I strongly believe that Canada needs a party to challenge the status quo. And it makes me proud of my country to find out that Sweden is exporting some good values and that the Swedish Pirate Party is gaining support from Canadians who believe that personal privacy is worth protecting.

On June 30th, Metro wrote about the Pirate Party and how, although there are right now only loosely organized individuals, there is hope that they can form an official federal political party within the next few years. ( Free music, movies for all?)

Yesterday, The Pirate Party also made Metro's "In-list", with the following description:

Metro's 7th heaven

3. The Pirate Party
Politics Shiver me timbers, eh? The copyright-bashing spirit of the Swedish collective is headed for Canadian shores, thanks to a small group of home made swash-bucklers who are banding together following the party's rising popularity in parts of Europe. Their platform? People should have the right to share and copy music, movies and virtually any material, as long as it is for personal use, not for profit.

Of course, The Pirate Party is still not being taken completely seriously, but then again, neither was The Green Party when it was first formed. What the party needs right now is publicity... because any publicity is good publicity, right?

2010 Olympics: one step forward for Big Brother?

2009-07-02T21:06:00.006+02:00

Perhaps it was just a matter of time. Canada is after all part of the British Common Wealth and hence share the same head of state as Great Britain. It therefor makes sense for her to follow in the footsteps of Great Britain. As we all know, Britain is turning in to a police state with surveillance cameras in every corner to guard every step their citizens are taking.

Terrorists might of course be lurking in any corner, and the Olympics would be an ideal event for those terrorists to attack us. So it only makes sense to increase security for such an event, right? The problem though is that once they have installed the cameras, what is the guarantee that they will be taken down? It might be tempting to just leave the security cameras where they are. After all, the infrastructure will be in place. And if history can provide any guidance, my guess is that the cameras will continue to be used even when the Olympics are long over with. After all, the cameras were kept running in Sydney after the 2000 Olympics.

So it doesn't come to any greater surprise that Vancouver officials and police aren't being clear about whether or not security cameras for the 2010 Winter Olympics will be permanent.

Perhaps the Queen, although her powers are allegedly largely ceremonial would be more than happy to be able to keep a watchful eye on what her people are up to on the other side of the Ocean.

This issue was covered in The Province

The Iranian "election fraud"

2009-06-25T02:29:00.007+02:00

It seems like the media have just been waiting for the opportunity to attack Iran, and since the election results, they have brought out full artillery. In Western media, the election has been portrayed as being fraudulent and the demonstrations against the election fraud has been massive in Iran. Is it possible to determine what the real story is?

[T]here was only one poll carried out by a western news organization. It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and ABC News, and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation. The CPO has a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005. The poll, conducted a few weeks before the elections, predicted an 89 percent turnout rate. Further, it showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi.
How did this survey compare to the actual results? And what are the possibilities of wide scale election fraud?

According to official results, there were 46.2 million registered voters in Iran. The turnout was massive, as predicted by the CPO. Almost 39.2 million Iranians participated in the elections for a turn out rate of 85 percent, in which about 38.8 million ballots were deemed valid (about 400,000 ballots were left blank). Officially, President Ahmadinejad received 24.5 million votes to Mousavi’s 13.2 million votes, or 62.6 per cent to 33.8 per cent of the total votes, respectively. In fact, this result mirrored the 2005 elections when Ahmadinejad received 61.7 per cent to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s 35.9 per cent in the runoff elections. Two other minor candidates, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaee, received the rest of the votes in this election.
(What Actually Happaned in the Iranian Presidential Election?)
Western leaders rejected the results because they ‘knew’ that their reformist candidate could not lose…For months they published daily interviews, editorials and reports from the field ‘detailing’ the failures of Ahmadinejad’s administration; they cited the support from clerics, former officials, merchants in the bazaar and above all women and young urbanites fluent in English, to prove that Mousavi was headed for a landslide victory. A victory for Mousavi was described as a victory for the ‘voices of moderation’, at least the White House’s version of that vacuous cliché. Prominent liberal academics deduced the vote count was fraudulent because the opposition candidate, Mousavi, lost in his own ethnic enclave among the Azeris. Other academics claimed that the ‘youth vote’ – based on their interviews with upper and middle-class university students from the neighborhoods of Northern Tehran were overwhelmingly for the ‘reformist’ candidate.

What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.

(Iranian Elections: The 'Stolen Elections' Hoax')

So how come there has been massive protests in Iran if there is nothing to indicate fraud and the results are quite what one would expect?

Commentators are "explaining" the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad's win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government.

On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”

On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”

A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”

On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”
The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.

(Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated "Color revolution"?)

The US has worked long and hard to destabilize Iran, and I do not find it very unlikely that they have played an important role in causing the current violent protests on the streets of Tehran. It will be interesting to follow the development...

Why accepting the FDA approved microchip might not be such a great idea

2009-06-13T18:43:00.005+02:00

The VeriChip, an implantable computer chip, has already been in use for quite some time to track animals. But its use has started to expand to include humans. Of course, its use in humans is suppose to be limited to storage of patient-specific medical information that can be obtained by health care professionals if they pass a scanner over it. The point of having this device implanted in ones arm is that health care professionals are able to get important medical information, such as one's allergies and prior treatments. The issue, of course, it the possibility that the chip could also be used as a tracking device, as it has been used in animals. If the technology is already there, the possibility for misuse is also there.

“If privacy protections aren’t built in at the outset, there could be harmful consequences for patients,” said Emily Stewart, a policy analyst at the Health Privacy Project. (msnbc)

I recently also came across something even more disturbing. According to The Local, a Saudi Arabian inventor has filed for a patent on a human tracking microchip that could enable remote killing.

The tiny electronic device, dubbed the “Killer Chip” by Swiss daily Tagesanzeiger, would be suited for tracking fugitives from justice, terrorists, illegal immigrants, criminals, political opponents, defectors, domestic help, and Saudi Arabians who don’t return home from pilgrimages.

“I apply for these reasons and for reasons of state security and the security of citizens,” the statement reads.

After subcutaneous implantation, the chip would send out encrypted radio waves that would be tracked by satellites to confirm the person’s identity and whereabouts. An alternate model chip could reportedly release a poison into the carrier if he or she became a security risk.

The patent will most likely be denied, but in the fight against terrorists (including domestic terrorists), a police state would probably be very interested in its potentials, and if the VeriChip becomes commonly used, it wouldn't be too difficult to tag "potential terrorists" with a tracking chip.

Science fiction?

Peter Schiff saw the crisis coming

2009-06-10T20:16:00.002+02:00

Peter Schiff made an appearance at the Daily Show with John Stewart to discuss the Financial Crisis.

He has been warning that the crisis was coming for years, and his predictions have turned out to be painfully true. Maybe it is time for other "experts" to stop laughing at him while pretending that everything is alright with the economy and start taking him seriously.

Loyal Arrow 2009

2009-06-10T10:20:00.009+02:00

Although Sweden is not a member of NATO, it is hosting the NATO lead aerial exercise known as "Loyal Arrow 2009" June 8 to June 18. "While Swedish forces are not participating in Loyal Arrow the country is a designated host country and is providing logistical support including air space, airports and areas to bomb."(The local)

This morning, four members from the non-violent anti-militaristic network Ofog were arrested at the Vidsel base in Norrbotten and are being transported to the police in Luleå for questioning (Göteborg-posten).

The group argued that "NATO is not a defensive alliance. It is the world's largest nuclear weapons club and war machine."
(The local)

“NATO functions as a constant threat of war around the world, not a force for peace” said Elsa Berglund. “It is the West's tool to maintain an unfair 'world order'”.(Ofog)

In my opinion, Sweden should have no part in this exercise. We are spending our limited military resources on providing logistical support for foreign forces although we are suppose to be a neutral country. Ofog is doing the right thing in protesting against this. Preparations for more unjust warfare? Not in my backyard, thank you very much.

Can we print ourselves out of the Financial Crisis?

2009-06-09T19:14:00.005+02:00

In the video clip below, Peter Schiff argues against Michael Mussa that the situation in the United States is like a giant Ponzi scheme, where the bailouts and the stimulus packages are just making the recession worse. "We can't keep trying to reflate the bubble. That's what got us into this mess."

Is it a big surprise to find out that the "think-tank" Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics among others have these two as its board members?

David Rockefeller
Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chase Manhattan.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild
CEO and President, E.L. Rothschild Limited.

The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds are two families who have huge influence on politics, and who unfortunately don't have Americans' best interest in mind. Is it possible to hope for change to sound policy in Washington when the frontman of this "think-tank" seems to believe that it is ok to continue printing money in order to get out of the mess?

The right to privacy - a small issue?

2009-06-09T08:58:00.007+02:00

The supporters of citizens' rights have spoken up and voted in The Pirate Party to the European Parliament, and Christian Engström will be taking a seat in the Parliament this fall.

http://www.thelocal.se/19936/20090608/

The Pirate Party is often criticized by established parties for being a "one-issue party" that has no opinion on some of the major issues that the EU Parliament will make decisions about. They have also tried to make it seem like the only thing that the people who vote for the Pirate Party are concerned about is their ability to download movies and music for free, which is a complete misrepresentation of the voter base.

By patronizing the people who vote for the Pirate Party, the other parties are sending out the message that our personal rights and our freedoms on the Internet is a minor issue. The fact is that it should be the greatest concern in a democracy. Especially the young realize that Internet can't be separated from reality. For those born since 1990, Internet has been an integral part of their lives, and it is not an issue to be taken lightly. We need to wake up and realize that our rights are at stake.

This video speaks quite a lot:

Why Obama is worse than Bush

2009-06-07T22:18:00.007+02:00

Yeah, Bush is a lying war criminal, but at least it is pretty obvious from the looks of him and by the way he speaks that he can't be trusted. Obama, on the other hand, is handsome, charismatic and an excellent speaker who has given the American people a sense of hope for the future. But unfortunately his actions don't speak as load as his words. I am still waiting for the "change". Instead of change, I think we are getting more of the same from this master of doublespeak.

Clearly, changing the actor doesn't change the play to any greater extent when the director remains the same.

Cui bono?

2009-06-07T12:11:00.010+02:00

If I wish to determine if a person is involved in the cover up of a crime, I can think of two things I would be particularly interested in examining:

1. What are the physical evidence linking the person to the crime?

2. Cui bono? meaning "for whose benefit is it?" i.e. who benefited from the crime? If the person benefited from the crime, it is also likely that he was involved.

When it comes to the official conspiracy theory of what happened on September 11, 2001, nothing really seems so add up. It was claimed that 19 al-Qaeda terrorists were able to crash 3 airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, causing the Twin Towers and building 7 to collapse at almost free fall speed within a few hours of the crash. They were able to take control of the airplanes using box cutters as their only weapons. So far the story seems quite unlikely, and adding the ridiculous amount of evidence against this story, it becomes no less than science fiction. Taking the evidence into consideration, it becomes obvious that 911 was an inside job. Why would the Bush administration otherwise have done everything in their power to hide evidence from public scrutiny.

1. The physical evidence that I present contradicting this official story is just a sample of evidence that can be found, but I find these to be the most compelling.

Twin Tower and Building 7 collapse.

The evidence that these buildings came down through controlled demolition is overwhelming. And in order to take down buildings as large as these, weeks and weeks of planning and work would have been needed to plant the devices. There is no way that al-Qaeda could have had access to these buildings. So someone else besides al-Qaeda must have been involved in the attacks...

Silverstein, the owner of building 7, seems to have been unaware of the amount of work that goes into taking a building down though controlled demolition when he makes the statement that they decided to "pull the building". He is basically confessing that the building was deliberately taken down though controlled demolition! You would think that the insurance company would be interested in knowing this, since he collected a huge compensation ($2.2 billion) for his "losses" from the insurance policy he got shortly before the attacks.

Here is further evidence. A Danish scientist has found nanothermite in the dust from the World Trade Center dust. In the end he says "I think there is only one conspiracy theory worth mentioning, the one involving 19 hijackers. I think the viewers should ask themselves what evidence they have seen to support the official conspiracy theory."

Did you know that the 911 Commission report completely omits reporting on the collapse of building 7, simply because they have no way of explaining how it could have come down.

For more information: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

The Attack on the Pentagon

The Pilots for 911 truth are questioning the official story as to what happened to the Pentagon. Maneuvering a 757 like the supposed terrorist did is impossible, especially considering that he couldn't fly. Also, the airplane is nowhere to be seen on footage of the accident and the FBI refuses to release footage from cameras that filmed the attack. This video summarizes the oddities:

The drills on 911 and NORAD's complete failure to intervene

Just like during the 7/7 bombing in London, drills were being run on the day of the attack, making it hard to make the distinction between real and exercise. This seems like a big coincidence. Also, NORAD was strangely enough completely incapable of defending the skies on the day of the attack. Bush and Rice claimed that they had no way of envisioning airplanes being used as weapons and flown into the Pentagon and WTC and that's why they failed to react. But that turned out not to be true.

The 19 hijackers

Who were the 19 hijackers? How can some of them still be alive? And how is it possible that a passport is found in the rubble of the Twin Towers although everything else was disintegrated? Seems to me that evidence has been conveniently planted.

2. I found interesting clips from a Dutch show called "The Devil's advocate" where they find Osama Bin Laden not guilty to the 911 attacks. This is the first one out of four parts:

Terrorist organizations take pride in their accomplishments, so how come Al-Qaeda never confessed to the attacks on September 11? What could they possibly have hoped to gain from the attack? Well, we have heard that their only motive was that they hated democracy and our freedoms, so that is why they attacked us. Isn't it ironic then, that the Bush administration have gone out of their way to enforce rules upon us that restricts our freedoms in order to protect us from terrorists?

Bush was quick to sign the Patriot Act.

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act)

Bush also went to war quickly against Afghanistan even though there was no hard evidence to support that Afghanistan had anything to do with 911. So now thousands of young have been sacrificed in phony wars against Afghanistan and later Iraq simply to keep up the US hegemony and influence in the Middle East intact and concentrating power to a few.

Couldn't a war against Israel have been more justified?

This is the first part of two videos:

For most people, it is hard to believe that the government had knowledge of the attacks and that they are hiding information from us. One realizes that they are complicit in the killing of innocent people, not on the other side of the world, but right on their own territory. It is a terrifying thought, because if they were capable of this, what else are they capable of doing? Will we see our freedoms slip away even further and more false flag terrorist operations to come? Now, the big threat seems to be bio terrorism or a great flu pandemic. Did you know that, in case of an emergency, the President has the right to further suspend our rights?

Totalitarianism, is it inevitable? It seems like we, for every day that passes, are loosing more and more freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. Since 911 has been used as a pretext to limit our freedoms, is it important to expose the truth.

If you are interested in a simple overview of the 911 inconsistencies "Loose Change" covers quite a lot:

Sarkozy's compulsory vaccination campaign against H1N1

2009-06-04T08:12:00.010+02:00

On May 30, the French newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche published an article where they claimed that the French government will be spending 1 billion euros to buy vaccinations against the H1N1 virus (so called swine flu virus). Moreover, the vaccine will be made compulsory (that means 100 million doses)!

Personne n'aurait le droit, sauf dans le cas d'une contre-indication médicale, de refuser de se soumettre à une telle vaccination. S'y soustraire à titre individuel, ce serait prendre le risque de contaminer autrui.

(Translation: Nobody would have the right to, unless there is a contraindication to the medicine, to refuse to undergo this vaccination. If one refuses to comply with this policy, it would put others into risk)

While the scare seems to have subsided in most of the world, France is still in defensive mode and preparing for a new outbreak in the fall. But as we know, the so called Swine Flu (actually a mix of strains of bird, swine and human flu) was not very deadly. What the authorities are hyping up is the possibility that the virus will mutate and become more deadly. But one can't help to become slightly suspicious when one hears about these plans.

The only problem is that to date neither the WHO nor the US Government’s Center for Diseases Control (CDC) have succeeded to isolate, photograph with an electron microscope and chemically classify the H1N1 Influenza A virus. There is no scientifically published evidence that French virologists have done so either. To mandate drugs for a putative disease that has not even been characterized is dubious to say the least.

Global Research

As I wrote in a previous blog entry, we should be very critical against any suggestion that we should inoculate ourselves against the swine flu virus.

The news of possibly compulsory flu shots is even more disturbing in the lights of this article from August 14, 2008, that foresees the possibility of the US government to "weaponize" Avian Flu. A Pandemic could be released "though the process of mandatory vaccinations". Considering the odd genetic make up of the Swine Flu, it is highly possible that it was created through genetic manipulation.

As it says in the article:

A basic virological fact that the public has not been told is that it is impossible to make a vaccine against a virus that does not yet exist. Public relations efforts to the contrary, IF a vaccine is being made against the Avian Flu virus in its pandemic form, that means that the pandemic virus must already exist, period, end of discussion.

So then, if France already is ready to spend 1 billion euros on a vaccine against the Swine Flu, does the Flu in its pandemic form already exist? If so, where and by whom has it been created?

Dr. Laibow reports that the "Pandemic Avian Flu Vaccine" was scheduled to be delivered to the United States this month by the French vaccine maker, Sanofi Pasteur, from a facility they own in China, where it is being produced. The US Government issued its "Vaccine" allocation plan in July. Laibow fears that a most sinister scenario of a deliberate release of Avian Flu pathogens on the population that could activate martial law and forced vaccination with resulting deaths in the millions could be imminent. Spanish Flu virus revived by Pentagon.

So,

There are in this world some people not in their "right mind." God forbid if it is so in this instance.

The war over the Internet

2009-06-01T19:40:00.011+02:00

I guess the US have reached a point where they have searched all the caves in Afghanistan for terrorists and need to move on somehow and find new ways to fight the threats out there. So where might the dangers be lurking this time? Well, the answer could be somewhere right in front of you. The Internet has evolved from something benign into a ticking bomb just waiting to blast off.

In the video below, Jay Rockefeller vents his concerns over the Internet. Apparently it is "the number one national hazard".

Sponsored by Rockefeller, Obama has decided to take on the beast of cyberspace by introducing the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. Apparently, "Al Queda and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country - attacks that are harder to detect and harder to defend against. Indeed in today's world , acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes on the computer - a weapon of mass disruption"

The President assures us that our privacy will be protected, but if the Internet is the new battle field against terror and criminals, is there a way to avoid collateral damage? I think not.

Reading through sec. 18. Cybersecurity Responsibilities and authority I notice that "The President (2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" which could pretty much mean anything if left without further clarification. He could have full authority to introduce Martial law over the Internet.

As I have written before, it is important to safeguard democracy on the Internet. In Sweden, our civil liberties have come under attack with the infamous FRA law that passed a year ago during the Midsummer holiday. Perhaps in an effort to keep the public from informing themselves, since they would be too busy dancing around the Midsummer pole and drinking schnapps. It was still met with huge protests, but apparently not enough since it still passed.

I think the people are tired of politicians trying to pull their legs. We know that they lied over and over again in order to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Could the same be said for Obama's alleged "weapon of mass disruption"? Against whom will this cyberwar be fought? If history can provide us with any kind of guidance, it tells us that the real victims of war are not the criminals or terrorists. In the war on the the Internet, we do not have to pay with our lives, but we might just have to pay by loosing our freedoms.

Privacy matters

2009-05-30T21:14:00.009+02:00

With the elections for the EU parliament representatives nearing, it is time for all Europeans to ask themselves which issues they think are the most important ones to be addressed. The problem, at least here in Sweden, is that the representatives, regardless of which party they belong to, have very much voted alike on different issues. I think that many people feel disillusioned by this. It becomes impossible weighing different parties and candidates against each other when it is unclear where they stand.

I am hoping that the discontent with the work of the traditional parties won't lead voters to turn to the far-right or far-left parties. What we do not need is groups turning our focus away from real issues, and we certainly don't want anti-Muslim voices in the Parliament. The Muslims have been used enough as scapegoats for crimes committed by others.

Personally, I am quite concerned with the development in Sweden and in Europe when it comes to privacy; I want to know that the party I vote for will protect my rights. That is why I have chosen to vote for Piratpartiet on the day of the election. They seem to be the only ones to take privacy seriously. I don't want a surveillance state because there is no saying how far it might go. If the government has the right to check what we write in our e-mails and which internet pages we visit, even those who have nothing to hide will become more cautious of what they do. It is not true that if you have done nothing wrong, you have no reason to be concerned about surveillance. The point is that we should not have to be afraid to express ourselves even if it may not be politically correct. If everything we do, may be monitored, what we have created is a psychological thought police state.

Internet is one of the few places where democracy still exists. Let us keep it that way.

Terrorists may attack the open society, but only governments can abolish it. The Pirate Party wants to prevent that from happening.

"Yes, we can"...what exactly?

2009-05-28T21:43:00.006+02:00

I may not think highly of the United States, but one positive aspect with the American way of life has been how highly they value individuality. It is every man's choice what he decides to do with his life, and the government should intervene as little as possible in one's affairs.

This comes at a certain price, of course. Nothing scares them more than the C or the S word (communism and socialism of course). Wars have been fought simply because of their fear of the spread of communism.

But today, do we see a shift? After the financial collapse, is capitalism dead? Maybe what is needed now when capitalism is dead is unity?

So in steps the charming Obama to promote unity and his youth corps. I find it disturbing that young Americans are being manipulated into joining youth corps when there is still no clear answer as to why they exist. Everybody seems to be yelling "Yes, we can". Maybe they should be asking instead, "exactly what is that that we are expected to do? And why?" When one becomes a follower, there is no saying how far one may go for one's leader.

The young are the future, and what I would wish to see are critical thinkers, not followers of a meaningless motto.

This is an article about scouts being trained to fight terrorism:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html

And here is a video comparing Obama's youth corps to The Third wave experiment:

Explanation for financial crisis for dummies

2009-05-26T17:45:00.005+02:00

Why try to make up elaborate explanations when the truth is so simple.

The cause can be summarized with two words: Government intervention

One major issue was the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in 1977 and revised many times) , which was introduced as to "reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods". It was suppose to provide "affordable housing" for low income families, but by granting sub prime mortgages to basically anyone (people with poor credit) allowing more people to enter the housing market, the price on housing skyrocketed, becoming artificially high, causing a housing boom. So the CRA actually caused un-affordable housing but affordable loans. All while interest rates were kept artificially low.

So what would you expect to happen when the interest rates starts increasing while high-risk lenders with small margins stand there with their over-prized houses to pay for? They have to leave their houses, and as more and more houses are foreclosed, the house prices drop. We have a bust. The bank is unable to get the the money that it loaned out back even by selling the house, since the money they would get back would be much lower than the money the loaned out. Hence, the bank is bancrupt. (If they don't get bailed out)

Banks would be highly unlikely to loan money to someone they thought would be unable to pay it back, at least if they didn't think that they would be bailed out. But because of the CRA, the banks were forced to do so. If not, they would face huge fines.

Had the free market been let to work as it should, we wouldn't be having the problems that we are facing now. Yet, the free market is being blamed for this. And we are demanding more government intervention although this was what caused the crisis in the first place.

This video gives a pretty good explanation to the crisis (although the music is pretty annoying):

And an interesting article

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods111.html

Were the policy makers so stupid that they didn't understand what effect these policies would have on the economy?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13551

How to create a terrorist

2009-05-25T17:27:00.006+02:00

If a man decides to murder his wife in order to receive money from her life insurance but pays someone off to kill her for him instead of doing it himself, is the husband or the hitman he paid to have her killed guilty of murder?

There is no doubt in my mind that the husband would be considered guilty.

Compare this situation to one in which a policeman pays some guys off to commit a crime or to act as scapegoats in order for the police to look like they are doing a good job. Could the police be considered guilty of a crime? The criminals would be as unlikely to have committed the crime without the aid of the police as the hitman would be to kill the wife without having received money to do so from the husband.

Yesterday I wrote about the MI5 blackmailing young Muslim men to become informants. I also mentioned the probability that the New York terror plot had been orchestrated by the FBI and that the "terrorists" were actually patsies. Well, according to this article, the girlfriend of one of these men makes the claim that they had been lured by money and drugs and that they had no plans of carrying out a terrorist attack.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05242009/news/regionalnews/jihad_bait__snitch_170769.htm?page=0

If "terrorists" need to be found using baits or threats one may question if one should be more concerned about the terrorists or those who have created them. If there were no FBI informants or MI5 agents running after Muslims with money or threats, would we have had any problems with domestic terrorism?

The 7/7 bombers possibly patsies?

2009-05-24T21:15:00.011+02:00

After 9/11, the US and Britain have several times been targeted by extremist Muslim terrorists determined to undermine western democracy. And every time this has happened the government has stepped in to protect its citizens against these immense threats to our freedoms... by further restricting our freedoms...but at least they make us feel like we are safe in the hands of the government.

A few days ago, we learned about a terror plot in which four men planned to blow up a Jewish temple and shoot down military planes. Luckily, the FBI had been surveying them for a year and could stop them from carrying out their evil plans. But it took them a whole year to get them to buy the fake weapons and get them charged for the terror plot, so they didn't really seem too eager to carry out their plot, did they? But that they managed to stop these men proves to us all that the measures taken to fight domestic terrorists are fruitful and necessary to our safety, right?

The story bares a strong resemblance to the one in which four men planned to bomb the Sears tower, covered by Jon Stewart in the segment below.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Headlines - The Apprentices

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

After watching this you question if the terrorist group had any clue of what they were doing or if they were just pawns in a game to make police state measures seem legitimate.

Below is the first part of a very interesting documentary concerning the 7/7 bombings. Once again, it doesn't really seem like the terrorists really knew what they were doing. Why buy a two-way ticket if you were planning to blow yourself up on the underground for example?

Recently, I came across this article covering the the story of five British Muslim men who were approached by the MI5 and then blackmailed in order to join the MI5 as informants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-how-mi5-blackmails-british-muslims-1688618.html

Is it possible that the domestic terrorists on these three occasions had been tricked? Did the MI5 need to find patsies to carry out attacks?

Who's innocent and who's guilty in these stories?

Oh Brave New World

2009-05-23T10:03:00.006+02:00

The most important lesson of history is that nobody ever learns history's lesson

Aldous Huxley speaks to Mike Wallace in this interview about how our world could become brave new world. He makes an interesting point when he says that rulers will be able to bypass the rational side of man and appeal to his deeper emotions, making him actually love his slavery. This by using new types of drugs and propaganda aided by new technology.

Annie Machon

2009-05-22T23:09:00.006+02:00

This is a really interesting video. Annie Machon is a former MI5 agent, now a whistle blower and part of the 911 truth movement. She is speaking at different locations in Canada at the end of May.

Swine Flu Pandemic?

2009-04-25T12:21:00.010+02:00

Once again, they try to scare us with the news of a new flu outbreak, this time a swine flu outbreak. Is there reason to be afraid? Well, what we should fear is certainly not being around pigs.

The new flu strain is a never before seen mix of swine, avian and human influenza viruses. How the hell did that happen? It boggles me to think of where it may come from. From a lab perhaps?

I also think that the same people who planned for this swine flu outbreak are the ones who will be promising us salvation if we jump on the waggon to get a vaccine. Would you trust the cure from someone who created the disease?

You might remember the news first released by a Czech newspaper in the beginning of March this year regarding vaccines being contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus.

Here is part of the story:

Czech newspapers are questioning if the shocking discovery of vaccines contaminated with the deadly avian flu virus which were distributed to 18 countries by the American company Baxter were part of a conspiracy to provoke a pandemic.

The claim holds weight because, according to the very laboratory protocols that are routine for vaccine makers, mixing a live virus biological weapon with vaccine material by accident is virtually impossible.

“The company that released contaminated flu virus material from a plant in Austria confirmed Friday that the experimental product contained live H5N1 avian flu viruses,” reports the Canadian Press.

Baxter flu vaccines contaminated with H5N1 - otherwise known as the human form of avian flu, one of the most deadly biological weapons on earth with a 60% kill rate - were received by labs in the Czech Republic, Germany, and Slovenia.

Initially, Baxter attempted to stonewall questions by invoking “trade secrets” and refused to reveal how the vaccines were contaminated with H5N1. After increased pressure they then claimed that pure H5N1 batches were sent by accident. This was seemingly an attempt to quickly change the story and hide the fact that the accidental contamination of a vaccine with a deadly biological agent like avian flu is virtually impossible and the only way it could have happened was by wilful gross criminal negligence.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/accidental-contamination-of-vaccine-with-live-avian-flu-virus-virtually-impossible.html

You may also want to note that the last significant outbreak of a new form of swine flu originated from the army base at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Although none of the soldiers infected became ill, President Ford ordered a nation wide vaccination programme.

More than 40 million people were vaccinated. However, the program was stopped short after over 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a severe paralyzing nerve disease, were reported. 30 people died as a direct result of the vaccinations.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/previous-swine-flu-outbreak-came-from-fort-dix.html

The bottom line is: don't fall for the hype without properly informing yourself. The cure could be deadlier than the disease.

Iran's president Ahmadinejad addresses the elephant in the room

2009-04-21T09:32:00.011+02:00

The EU delegates should be ashamed of themselves for walking out like a bunch of sheep during the speech of Ahmadinejad, when he criticized Israel for its racist government. Whatever one thinks of this leader, what he said is true, and it is wrong to exclude discussions concerning the situation in Palestine and Israel at a conference on racism. Where else is one to discuss it if not here? Instead of walking out, I would have wished for them to respond to the criticism in a sound fashion. But I guess that it is easier to shut one's ears and walk out instead of facing the truth...

Here is a clip from Youtube:

Energy saving light bulbs - soon at a landfill near you

2009-04-19T10:08:00.013+02:00

I was watching the morning news show today and found out that sale of the incandescent bulbs will be phased out by 2012 in favor of more energy efficient light bulbs. This might seem all fine and dandy if it wasn't for the dangers of the energy efficient light bulbs that most people are unaware of. The energy efficient light bulbs on the market today contain mercury which poses a huge risk both to our health and to the environment, and there is no warning text on the packages in the stores, so many are unaware of this. I imagine that the benefits provided from saving some energy is not proportionate to the harm done if people simply throw them away in the garbage, causing our landfills and waters to be polluted by mercury. The least thing we need right now is more mercury in the fish we eat.

I believe it to be very irresponsible of the EU and the Swedish government to firstly allow this product on the market without a warning text and secondly to abolish the incandescent light bulb without a reliable alternative. ALL energy efficient light bulbs on the market contain mercury. Would you know what to do if one breaks, or worse, what would happen if your child broke one when you were absent? I would certainly be concerned if I was a parent.

For more information:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/89185

The hamster wheel

2009-04-08T13:15:00.004+02:00

Hamster wheels are exercise toys used by hamsters and other rodents. Most of these toys are composed of a runged wheel held on a stand by a pair of stub axles. Hamster wheels allow rodents to run even when their space is confined. [...] Like other rodents, hamsters are highly motivated to run in wheels; it is not uncommon to record distances of 9 km (6 miles) ran in one night. Other 24-h records include 43 km (26 miles) for rats, 31 km (18.5 miles) for wild mice, 19 km (11.5 miles) for lemmings, 16 km (9.5 miles) for laboratory mice, and 8 km (5 miles) for gerbils.^[5] Hypotheses to explain such high levels of running in wheels include a need for activity, substitute for exploration, and stereotypic behaviour, but various experimental results strongly suggest that wheel running, like play or the runner's high, is rewarding in and of itself and highly valued by the animals.

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

No, I won't be devoting my entire blog to the hamster wheel, but it is easy to find parallels between the lives of people and that of rodents. Like rodents, we enjoy the safe and comforting life in the "hamster wheel", where we substitute critical thinking and the uncomfortable truths for the soothing motion of the wheel. In the wheel, our goal is limited to obtaining the occasional "highs". We have accepted this conditioning because of its payoffs. Where would we be without the wheel?

But I don't believe that this kind of life is the life an evolved human should live. We are made to explore, discover and open our eyes. So in this blog, I wish to address current issues and give my own interpretations. I might also went some frustration I have over where we have ended up.