So Trump said something remarkable: ‘states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote’


Interesting. When the shoe was on the other foot, things went a bit differently, even though in that case the above sentiment would have been a little bit more than justified. 


Some tact and empathy would have been useful, but then again: what can you expect of the Orange Baboon? In a way he is a great representation what the US foreign policy is about.

Elections and foreign influences

We are all up in arms about how those dastardly Russians dared to -allegedly- influence the US elections directly and indirectly. 

After all... Freedom! Democracy! Whatever! True, western, democratic countries do not do such a thing as we all know. Not at all.

So how dare the Russians?

Anyhow. This is not what we're here to discuss... This is. And this, and this, and this. A shameless exploitation of terrorism to achieve political goals. Whose goals, though, I would ask.

So, where's the outrage now? Who exactly owns The Sun and the other filth? Could it be a foreign billionaire? Is it possible that his paper is breaking UK electoral laws, and exerting an enormous influence on British politics, and yet nobody is upset about it? That he's been doing this for decades now, contributing to the clusterfuck that is Brexit, and all the shitty things that are happening in these beautiful, rainy isles?
Oh, my.

It's quite predictable what will happen: a bunch of the uninformed masses will read this before they turn to the boobs on page 3, and will not even think of voting anyone else, but May, paragon of competence and morality. The Sun might be fined a hefty fine, but the damage will be done, and the goal will be reached; the fine will be looked at as a campaign contribution.

Perhaps we really should take a look at what interests are influencing our country's politics and policies; it would probably help making sense of why things happen the way they do- why the NHS is being privatised behind the scenes, why the UK intervenes where it should not really be doing interventions, and why the political elite clings to austerity like a bunch of priests to religious dogma, even though it has proven to be counterproductive, and even the IMF does not recommend it any more. (Which in itself is a miracle.)

So yeah.

Perhaps it's not just Putin who is the problem here.

Terrorism, porn and internet censorship

After yet another low-tech but still horrific  terror attack in London, Theresa May is demanding on implementing something like a Chinese or North Korean control of the internet. Because it's very progressive and democratic to do so. It's so nice that the paragons of democracy and freedom, the US and the UK have been showing us the way with the Patriot Act, global surveillance, black prisons and whatnot how it's done. Regardless, now we need to go a step further: "The Conservative manifesto pledges regulation of the internet, including forcing internet providers to participate in counter-extremism drives and making it more difficult to access pornography." 

Now, if you restrict people's access to pornography, you can expect some serious radicalisation from certain segments of the society; but jokes aside: what exactly has porn do with terrorism? Why are so-called democratic countries are trying to restrict free information, free speech and access to internet using terrorism as a scapegoat? How exactly will internet censorship put an end to someone jump into a van with a knife? Shouldn't we ban vans and knives instead? (Not a serious proposal.) How much do these clowns actually know about technology? Are they aware that there's no "control" switch for "the internet"? Doesn't it worry people that the politicians in charge of decisions have absolutely no clue how the modern world works? Do you think if you monitor facebook chat, radicalization would not happen? (I wonder how it happened before the age of the internet. Oh yeah. Offline. It's a good thing today's radicals would not think of moving off the grid, right?) And it would totally not be used to censor people speaking up against the UK's little dirty "secrets", like the ongoing support for regimes supporting extremism, right?

And lastly: trying to enact your little 1984esque mind control schemes is quite disrespectful for the victims of the attack. It is quite telling how they are trying to use this atrocity as excuse while the bodies are still warm, in order to further this completely unrelated agenda: controlling the masses by restricting what they have access to. (If they had a beef with cotton candy, they'd be talking about banning it, too; and it would be just as bizarre as this linking of porn and terrorism.) This is a quite sinister trend, and nobody seems to be giving a single shit. I guess if you've got nothing to hide, it's fine that the UK government reads your emails and restricts what you can and cannot view online; after all, this whole adulting is hard. It's better if someone else makes decisions for you.