Another, more positive way of thinking of rulers

This post is a sequel to:

Another, more positive way of thinking of rulers, is:

They may think they’re in charge: responsible for the state of the country, but people do what they want nonetheless. It’s the people that are the elephant, the politicians are the riders.

So it’s because of the people, when a civil war has not yet broken out. In spite of politician’s best efforts to start one I might add. The people sometimes break a law here and there, which keeps things running smoothly. It’s not the “wise, benevolent” rule of the overlords that does do. For instance, people crossing an empty cross roads, in spite of the stop light being red, reduce emmissions and should be rewarded, but instead are being fined, because they are a threat to (non-existent) traffic.

Now, of course, politicians appeal to the elephants in the people’s minds. The elephant in the elephant’s mind, if you will. This is sometimes called populism. Other times people call it demagogy/propaganda, yet other people call that public information campaigns.
I call it scandalous, like with the efforts of politicians to ifluence the vote of the referendum on the association treaty with the Ukrayne. Think about that for a mo’: the politicians (that claim they only execute the will of the people) openly tried to steer the will of the people!

Psychology should make you scared of rulers

If someone decides to impose their will on millions of others, that can’t be a sign of good mental health.

Human like to fool themselves into thinking they make rational choices, but they don’t. The subconcious mind is in active control most of the time (the elephant and it’s rider; the rider aka conscious mind thinks it tells the elephant – the unconscious mind – where to go, but that’s only post hoc foolery on behalf of the powerless rider).

Combined these two should make it clear that the ruling caste makes insane decisions, which they neatly justify in front of the TV cameras, but which are only based upon gut istincts and primal emotions. Even if they don’t know it, they only make decisions about what makes them feel nice. Since they are not very nice people (egotistical sadists, in fact), these decisions are bad for the people.

Reasons for war: gameplay or … ?

It’s starting to dawn on me, that there might be other reasons for the non-stop war than the fourth reich; Perhaps the government armed ISIS, in order to have a stronger enemy, so that the war would last longer/ kill more American soldiers. , So make it a more fair fight, instead of just the traditional big bully vs. little bullied victim.
Sounds silly? Why then, arm ISIS so shortly before picking a fight with them? (A fight that was inevitable, since IS is an Islamic organisation; Islam is the new communism)

Or is it simply that the US governmnt is so imprison-happy that they, instead of imposing a new ban on something (drugs have proven useful in this regard), chose to actively import new prisoners from other continents, and keep them locked up on questionable evidence, often genuinely bought from the witnesses


Volgens mij weet ik waar het geweld tegen hulpverleners vandaan komt; de sfeer in de regio Nederland is grondig verziekt. Zelfs zo erg, dat degenen die worden beschouwd als verlengstukken van de staat (hulpverleners) hun leven  meer zeker zijn.

Wil de overheid dat oplossen?  De burger wil dat ook! Want het is altijd de overheid die het voorbeeld geeft, de burger wil graag (voor de verandering) het GOEDE voorbeeld hebben.

Helaas helpen verkiezingen nooit, zelfs niet wanneer de uitslag wordt gerespecteerd door de junta (Rutte3 is zelfs nog minder democratisch dan Mussert1!) want de grote makke aan verkiezingen is, dat je alleen op POLITICI kunt stemmen, dus echt democratisch wordt het nooit. De burger kan alleen wikken en wegen welke de minst slechte keuze is, in de hoop dat er zoiets bestaat. 

Tijd voor een minarchistisch kabinet! Geen totalitair regime meer, want: politiek, het maakt meer kapot dan je lief is.

Mag ik voorstellen dat mensen het boek “Healing our world” van Mary Ruwart lezen? Het heeft, naast een briljante titel, ook briljante adviezen.

A strange…

Anarcho-communists live in a strange world. They insist on claiming that their brand of “pure”communism (not the unfulfilled intermediate-stage kind of the USSR) is possible and that therefore they are the only true anarchists. Since Anarchocapitalism allows for an employer-employee relationship, it therefore is not truly anarchist.
I suppose that’s true, but who cares about theoretical purity when 7 billion lives need organizing?
This is the strange bit: they must have a curious relationship with their employer. In my memory, the relationships with all my employers was quite cordial) it’s the best way to get things done: coaxing instead of whipping. This fits in with my opinion that politicians could achieve so much with leading by example instead of just making themselves (& their policies) unwanted.
Perhaps communists are incapable of comprehending that; perhaps THAT is the reason they continue to adhere to such a broken philosophy, in spite of all the evidence against it.
Speaking of the USSR: they continually hide behind claims that it was not meant as the definitive incarnation of communism: it was only an intermediate version, to fit in such a statist world.
Dream on: authoritarianit opression was logically the only kind of communism that could arise in a statist world , and once global communism had been a hieved (global hunger), the state would not go away, because thinking it would, would be to think that Stalin meant well. Stalin was too well trained by Lenin to give even a rat’s … for the people. There’s no beating about the bush: Stalin and Lenin were no more than measly politicians. (and probably the worst of their kind)

Rumours about BitCoin

One hears the silliest things about new, difficult technologies.
For instance: some people seriously maintain that the free shopping trolley tokens businesses sometimes hand out, can transmit your location to unwelwilling persons/criminal gangs. As if such a tiny coin-sized token could contain:

the required GPS-receiver,
the radio to send your location to a communications satellite.
a battery to power it all.

That’s leaving out the motivation for anyone not in government to do that. Failed states are keen to know where the people are, In case the people might plan to gang up on their overlords.

There are also people that maintain that BitCoin was invented by the banks. Those people have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. Bitcoin was invented by Satoshi Nakamoto to escape the clutches of the (central) banks. If the worod would switch to BitCoin, the banks (that did notswicth along) would collapse, much to the chagrin of the governments, that find banks a brilliant ally in their efforts to stay informed about the people. Want to punish someone? Seize their bank account. Done.

Other people sincerely publicly call for a ban on BitCoin, because it is a danger to the economy, according tobl e.g. Joseph Stiglitz. Problem is,that Joseph Stiglitz cannot be trusted, because he is a politician. He may have studied economics when he was young, but he works/worked for the world bank, which is a political institution, not a financial one.

Obviously the euro and the dollar are the greatest threats to the economy. (As has been proven by the Wall Street Crash and the tragedies of Greece and to a minor extent, Portugal)


Socialism is the ideology that leads to greatest selfishness. After all: starving people have little energy/resources to empathise with others.

This is demonstrated on  the streets of Athens, where people are starving to death, while passed by on the streets by those few lucky enough to still have a job.

At least with capitalism people will still have enough wealth left over in order to care for others. Again, a quick recap of Social Atrophy is in order:

By removing contact with others (by moving social wellfare out of the hands of the people, into the hands of the state,  people are trained to have less concern for their fellow man: after all: “If already so much from my paycheck goes towell fare,,why should I bother about the less fortunate?”)