Swedish author Björn Ranelid warns that the level of crime and violence the previously sedate country is experiencing amounts to a “small scale war”.
Ranelid cites car fires which were previously unknown but have now become commonplace across the country along with an explosion in shootings.
The author said that blaming the “frustrations” of young people for the crime wave was a cop out since his generation had it just as touch but didn’t turn to criminality.
“They lived crowded in outdated apartments and the economy of many families was poor, but none of my hundreds of acquaintances, friends and playmates burned cars, robbed old people or wore weapons,” he wrote.
According to Ranelid, the country is in dire need of a a “spiritual revolution” of ethics, morality and child raising.
“It is a small-scale war that affects all people who live and live in Sweden. The supply of explanations is over,” said Ranelid.
As we previously highlighted, grenade attacks and deadly shootings in Sweden – concerns over which were once derided as a conspiracy theory by the media – now represent a “national emergency” according to a new report.
Deadly shootings in Sweden have also risen by a factor of 10 in one generation, exacerbated by witness intimidation and “a code of silence in the country’s socio-economically weak immigrant areas,” according to Quillette’s Paulina Neuding.
The crime of robberies against children and sexual violence has also risen, with a third of young women reporting they feel unsafe going out at night.
This has all happened under the watch of a “feminist government” that has opened the borders to mass immigration like never before.
A sprawling and generous welfare system has also failed to deter migrants from turning to crime, while light punishments have also incentivized criminal behavior.
Meanwhile, head of the Swedish Security Service (Säpo) Anders Thornberg has told Swedes that they better get used to the current conditions.
Speaking of the current wave of shootings and violent crime across the country, Thornberg warned, “this can continue for five to ten years.”
The US Supreme Court has done next to nothing to enforce the Constitution and stop the government’s spying on the population.Phone calls, text messages, emails, credit card purchases, state driver’s license databases, literally everything about our lives is collected as privacy-violating information.Yet the Supreme Court based on speculation about the government’s motives has blocked the 2020 Census from finding out how many of the people living in the US are citizens.Apparently, the jurists on the court regard whether one is or is not a citizen as the only piece of private information that can’t be collected.
Apparently, the Supreme Court is responding to the organizers of Hispanics, such as the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, who are protecting their power in numbers and who speculate that the citizenship question is being used to reduce immigrants’ willingness to participate in the census survey, with the result being an undercount of Hispanics and, thus, less representation in legislatures.
Many Americans are concluding that the Supreme Court wants to make sure that illegal aliens are as represented in elected legislatures as US citizens. Identity Politics has produced a Supreme Court that regards achieving diversity more important than citizenship. The precedent is being established that citizenship is established by mere presence. If a person can place a foot on US territory, the person becomes a citizen. President Trump’s attempt to enforce US borders is regarded as a racist act.
“We have not accredited RT or Sputnik because of their active role in spreading disinformation,” said a Foreign Office spokeswoman.
“It takes a particular brand of hypocrisy to advocate for freedom of press while banning inconvenient voices and slandering alternative media; sadly, the world has learned to expect just that from the UK Foreign Office,” RT said in a statement in response.
“It amounts to direct politically motivated discrimination of the Russian channel,” said the Russian embassy in London. “The refusal of accreditation comes on top of the months-long smear campaign against RT by British political figures, governmental bodies, including media regulator Ofcom, and even fellow journalists.”
“Now a leading Russian international TV channel is denied access to the forum, despite being officially registered and working in the UK, on legal grounds,” the embassy added. “What better illustration of the real situation with media freedom in the UK does one need? Yet the organizers of the Conference, as far as we understand, wish to discuss the situation with media freedom anywhere in the world, but not in this country.”
UK govt organises international conference on ‘media freedom’, bans @RT_com (and Syria & Venezuela) from attending https://t.co/jT5LSFN0RN
’It takes a particular brand of hypocrisy to advocate for media freedom, while banning inconvenient voices and slandering alternative media’
The BBC’s report on this story hilariously contains a brazenly propagandistic video titled “What’s so different about Russia Today?” which carefully explains why it’s very important for the BBC’s audience to understand that RT is propaganda.
“They want to be an alternative view, which in fact is the propaganda machine of, and is paid for by, the Kremlin,” says the video by the BBC, a government-funded news station with an established history of collaboration with British intelligence to deplatform dissenting voices.
“The BBC tries to cover all the angles of the story, including those that wouldn’t be pleasant to the UK government,” the BBC video claims. “RT always picks up pundits, questions, issues, angles that show the Kremlin and the Russian government in a positive way.”
In reality, the BBC is very much guilty of enforcing what British journalist Jonathan Cook recently described as the “narrow manufactured consensus of supposedly rational policy – neoliberal orthodoxy at home, and neoconservative warmongering abroad.” Like all other mainstream British media, the BBC works to shrink the Overton window of acceptable debate and propagandize British citizens into arguing over how existing power structures should be aided and maintained instead of whether those power structures should exist at all. For the BBC to pretend that it is in any way superior to RT on any level is laughable.
But the BBC will certainly be in attendance at the Global Conference on Media Freedom, welcomed with open arms by the British government it only half-pretends to have an oppositional relationship with.
This would be the same British government that is currently holding journalist Julian Assange behind bars pending a US extradition hearing for exposing American war crimes. The same British government who UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer found guilty of participating in the psychological torture of that same journalist. The same Foreign Office whose head, Jeremy Hunt, told Face the Nation last month that he will allow Assange to be extradited to the US if he succeeds in his bid to become the next Prime Minister, after explicitly and repeatedly condemning the persecution of dissident
You won’t see any of this ridiculous, jaw-dropping hypocrisy called out by the BBC, nor by any other mainstream outlet in the uniquely spineless and sycophantic British media. Do you know where you will see this hypocrisy being criticized? RT.
The only reason RT and Sputnik exist with any degree of popularity in the west is because, contrary to what the BBC claims, people are unable to hear any voices that are critical of real power from western mainstream media. If the BBC or any other British outlet were to begin platforming actual anti-war, leftist and anti-establishment voices with any degree of regularity, I can guarantee you with 100 percent certainty that RT and Sputnik would immediately lose their UK audiences.
But that never happens, because British mass media does not “cover all the angles of the story, including those that wouldn’t be pleasant to the UK government” as the BBC claims, it publishes propaganda which directly benefits the underlying power structures of the UK government. Their job isn’t to tell the truth and hold power to account, their job is to normalize the status quo, manufacture consent for endless war, and tell you day in and day out that Jeremy Corbyn is a cross between Adolf Hitler and a werewolf.
The UK and Canada have launched a global campaign to #DefendMediaFreedom and shine a spotlight on media abuses.
Jeremy Hunt longs for the days when a country could peacefully propagandize its citizens without this pesky problem of propaganda from other countries seeping into the mix and forcing everyone to think for themselves. We have been experiencing a brief but wonderful period where the internet has opened up rivers of information from all sorts of perspectives, but we will need to fight to keep those rivers flowing. Invisible censorship has already begun in earnest, and it’s at these conferences where they dream up even more insidious ways to throttle dissident voices.
Be vigilant. Fight them.
_______________________
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics onTwitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon orPaypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
On June 22-23, 2001 – some 3 months before 9/11, and 4 months before the Anthrax attacks – the U.S. military held a senior-level war game at Andrews Air Force Base called Dark Winter.
The scenario of this bio-terrorism drill was designed to simulate a smallpox attack in three states. Numerous congressmen, former CIA director James Woolsey, New York Times reporter Judith Miller (who pushed the Iraq WMD myth, as well as the false link between Iraq and the Anthrax attacks), and anti-terror official Jerome Hauer all participated in the exercise.
As a part of this war game, scripted TV news clips were made to help make this drill as realistic as possible.
At the end of one of these clips, the reporter says:
Iraq might have provided the technology behind the attacks to terrorist groups based in Afghanistan.
Why is this interesting?
Because U.S. officials intentionally linked Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11 to justify the Iraq war, even though they knew there was no such connection. (The claim that Iraq is linked to 9/11 has since been debunked by the 9/11 Commission, top government officials, and even – long after they alleged such a link – Bush and Cheney themselves.)
Indeed, Dark Winter participant Woolsey – the former CIA director – swore in court testimony that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.
When Congress was originally asked to pass the Patriot Act in late 2001, the anthrax attacks which occurred only weeks earlier were falsely blamed on spooky Arabs as a way to scare Congress members into approving the bill. Specifically:
Woolsey was an outspoken proponent of war against Iraq even before 9/11.
Moreover, the parallels between the Dark Winter exercise and the Anthrax attacks are numerous. For example, in the Dark Winter exercise:
Anonymous letters are sent to the media
Anonymous letters threatened anthrax attacks on the United States
Iraq and Bin Laden are top suspects
Remember, neoconservatives planned regime change in Iraq 20 years ago (and the U.S. had already carried out regime change in Iraq in the early 1960s).
It has been extensively documented that the White House decided to invade Iraq before 9/11:
Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney said a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.” And see this.
We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?” It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive.
The First Amendment to our Constitution was proposed by the 1788 Virginia ratification convention during its narrow 89 to 79 vote to ratify the Constitution. Virginia’s resolution held that the free exercise of religion, right to assembly and free speech could not be canceled, abridged or restrained. These Madisonian principles were eventually ratified by the states on March 1, 1792.
Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo, in his article “Free Speech and Its Present Crisis,” appearing in the autumn 2018 edition of City Journal, explores the trials and tribulations associated with the First Amendment. The early attempts to suppress free speech were signed into law by President John Adams and became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Later attempts to suppress free speech came during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln and his generals attacked newspapers and suspended habeas corpus. It wasn’t until 1919, in the case of Abrams v. United States, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally and unambiguously prohibited any kind of censorship.
Today, there is growing contempt for free speech, most of which is found on the nation’s college and university campuses. Guelzo cites the free speech vision of Princeton University professor Carolyn Rouse, who is chairperson of the department of Anthropology. Rouse shared her vision on speech during last year’s Constitution Day lecture. She called free speech a political illusion, a baseless ruse to enable people to “say whatever they want, in any context, with no social, economic, legal or political repercussions.” As an example, she says that a climate change skeptic has no right to make “claims about climate change, as if all the science discovered over the last X-number of centuries were irrelevant.”…
We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?” It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive…
I am afraid that too many of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principles of liberty. Most people want liberty for themselves. I differ. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.
Be seeing you
Citizen: “What are you protesting against” Johnny: “What have you got?” The Wild One
Hate crime has become a major talking point in the United States over the past few years, particularly with the election of Donald Trump. Between 2014 and 2017, the FBI has reported a 31% increase in hate crime incidents in the United States per the UCR. Based on this information, one would believe that hate crime is becoming an increasing threat to the United States. After all, the data doesn’t lie.
Defining Hate Crime
However, one major problem with this is how hate crime is defined. According to the FBI, “A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.” The underlying problem with this definition is it elevates non-criminal activity to the level of a crime. Spray painting a phallus on the side of a building is vandalism. Spray painting a swastika on the side of a building is a hate crime. To get a true understanding of hate crime, the underlying action must be fully understood. When we eliminate motivation from the equation and separate events into the categories of violent crime, non-violent crime and misdemeanor, we find the percentage mix looks like this:
Year
Violent
Criminal – Non-Violent
Non-Criminal
2011
1%
17%
82%
2012
1%
20%
79%
2013
1%
19%
81%
2014
1%
20%
79%
2015
1%
20%
79%
2016
1%
19%
80%
2017
1%
20%
79%
The first major problem we run into, then, is that the vast majority of recorded hate crimes fall into a number of activities that normally fall under misdemeanor or even civil categories. These actions include vandalism, simple assault and a vague category the FBI uses called “Crimes Against Society.” Vandalism alone makes up a third of all events. It is troubling that the State elevates non-criminal matters into a criminal one based nothing on perpetrator motivation. The aforementioned swastika spray paint is no more difficult to clean off than a person scrawling their name.
Digging further, the increase in reported hate crimes is driven primarily by these non-criminal acts.
…Through the fact that there are any hoax events indicates that the problem of hate is, by and large, solved. Imagine for a moment if a black family in 1920 burned a cross on their own lawn and went around seeking sympathy. This would be an absurd tactic since, back then, the majority didn’t care that black families were targeted for hate crime. The overwhelming support such people obtain as the immediate snap decision has indicated that our society doesn’t tolerate such behavior and, since society doesn’t tolerate the behavior, finding individuals is equally rare. One doesn’t need to raise awareness when the events are so few that cable news outlets can justify days of debate over each event; we’re already pretty much aware the moment they happen. But one does need to raise awareness if they wish to have their 15 minutes of fame.
As I previously noted, the number of people who buy into hate ideology, regardless of motivation, is so trivial that they couldn’t even fill a minor league baseball stadium. There are more people than this who think the Earth is flat, yet no one considers that a growing trend. It would be impossible to casually talk about Nazis being evil if they had any semblance of power or authority as people would tread more carefully. Being anti-Nazi is a safe and easy way to win social points since there is almost zero risk of reprisal. Just ask Wilfred Reilly, who is on actual enemies lists, just how dangerous they are (they aren’t). However, politicians, certain groups and many individuals have strong incentives to manufacture hate crimes where none exist as such events generate votes, revenue and social attention.
George Orwell was a brilliant individual. A man of incredible insight – and foresight.
In his unfathomably predictive novel 1984, Orwell warns of Big Brother:
“(O)stensibly the leader of Oceania, a totalitarian state wherein the ruling party Ingsoc wields total power ‘for its own sake’ over the inhabitants.
“In the society that Orwell describes, every citizen is under constant surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens.…The people are constantly reminded of this by the slogan ‘Big Brother is watching you’: a maxim that is ubiquitously on display.
“In modern culture, the term ‘Big Brother’ has entered the lexicon as a synonym for abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties, often specifically related to mass surveillance.”
As brilliant as Orwell was, something continuously struck me as incorrect as I read 1984.
Orwell’s government – was extraordinarily competent in its totalitarian imposition of technological power.
In Reality – no government in the history of man has ever been even remotely close to that competent.
For Orwell’s Big Brother dystopia to become Reality – Big Government would need private sector help.
“If you want evidence that US intelligence agencies aren’t losing surveillance abilities because of the rising use of encryption by tech companies, look no further than the testimony…by the (then) director of national intelligence, James Clapper….
“Clapper made clear that the internet of things – the many devices like thermostats, cameras and other appliances that are increasingly connected to the internet – are providing ample opportunity for intelligence agencies to spy on targets, and possibly the masses. And it’s a danger that many consumers who buy these products may be wholly unaware of….
“Privacy advocates have known about the potential for government to exploit the internet of things for years. Law enforcement agencies have taken notice too, increasingly serving court orders on companies for data they keep that citizens might not even know they are transmitting. Police have already been asking Google-owned company Dropcam for footage from cameras inside people’s homes meant to keep an eye on their kids.”
Orwell got the tech right – just not Big Government’s ability to create it for totalitarian ends…
The UK government coverup of Middle Eastern child grooming gangs, A ten year coverup in Robinson’s case, is so reprehensible the government will do anything to avoid more exposure.
President Trump is being criticized for surrounding himself with tanks, armored vehicles, flyovers, and generals and admirals during his Fourth of July celebration at the Lincoln Memorial. Critics say that it was unseemly for the president to be showing off the federal government’s military prowess on Independence Day. Some said it conjured up images of the Soviet Union, when that communist regime would showcase its tanks and military hardware in parades in Moscow’s Red Square.
But the fact is that America is a military nation. As Trump pointed out in his Independence Day address, the United States has the most powerful military in history, one that can pulverize any other nation on earth. His critics don’t have any problem with that. They just don’t want Trump to highlight it.
Of course, it wasn’t always that way. In extolling America’s position as a military nation, Trump left out something important in his talk: America did not start out as a military nation. In fact, quite the contrary. America was founded as a limited-government republic, not a military nation.
In fact, the people who founded the United States abhorred the concept of a military nation. That’s one of the reasons they chose to revolt against their own government, which was a military nation, one whose officials extolled its military prowess, just as Trump does today with America.
It’s easy to think of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence as great Americans. They weren’t. The reason they weren’t was that they weren’t Americans. They were British citizens. They were every bit as British as Americans today are Americans.
Americans today praise the signers of the Declaration as patriots. But I will guarantee you that their government didn’t consider them to be patriots. They considered them to be terrorists, criminals, and traitors. If the government had won, the rebels would have been long forgotten,
What about the British troops? Not surprisingly, the government exhorted the British colonists to support the troops. They pointed out what Trump pointed out yesterday — that it is the duty of the citizenry to support the troops because they are protecting the nation and the freedom of the citizenry.
And in fact, it has been estimated that about one-third of the British colonists did end up supporting the troops during the Revolution. They sided with their government and cheered the troops as they tried to put down the rebellion by killing the British citizens who were doing the rebelling.
The British revolutionaries, on the other hand, absolutely refused to support the troops. On the contrary, they chose to shoot and kill the troops. They wanted the troops to surrender and return to England so that they could establish their own nation, one that would not be a military nation like the one against which they were rebelling.
So, who were the real patriots — the ones who supported the troops or the ones who shot and killed the troops? In the movie The Patriot, which starred Mel Gibson, the answer was that the patriots were those who are willing to stand up to the wrongdoing of their own government, which sometimes means standing up to the government’s troops...
