Three reasons I’m glad Donald Trump is president

Of course Gary Johnson would have been better, but there are a few rays of sunlight to Trump’s presidency:

1) The head of the biggest criminal organisation in the world is now literally called “the Don”. They lie and steal, and kill (have been doing so for longer than living memory)

2) I think less harshly of Obama (2,terms, 8 years, 7 wars, 1 Nobel peace-prize, 0 days of peace), instead of calling him a bloodthirsty rabid vampire, I now just think of him as incompetent against the (let’s call it) shadow government. He was unable to defend the people’s interests against the powers that want, but yet he decided to run for a second term. Sliding back into vampiric territory, Barry!

3) Hillary wrote a book “What happened” discrediting the left forever as whiny, paranoid, petty, vindictive patheticos with no capacity of self reflection. Therefore splendidly unsuitable for government. It came out shortly after Trump got indicted by some democrats thatcwere hoping this would be the ideal moment in the smear campaign against the least likely president since independence from GB.

Advertisements

Another joy of private property

Thids ppstvis a follow up to: https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/12/06/the-joys-of-private-property/

If environmental activists are really so concerned about protecting public land from the president’s greedy cronies, the should champion that all land becomes private property. One can’t really complain about what the president does to state monuments, like enabling oil exploration, because it is HIS land.
If you wanna protect the national monuments, buy them, before explorers discover oil there and the price rises. When they’re your private property, you decide what does and does not get done there.
Si, shut up about Trump letting “his buddies in the oil industry” ruin public lands, because there is no such thing as public lands! When the government owns it, they can do to it whatever they want. So long as, once every 4 years, they pretend to care about the people, by holding elections (and lying to their faces – the pinacpe of democracy)

Why proper socialism (communism) can never work, pt2

The future must be anarchocapitalist. The nation states can’t continue on. They’re self-destructive: politicians, once they’ve got the taste of power, will always spiral out of control. So the future is either anarchist, or it’s dead. Let’s stay positive and go for the living option: the future’s anarchist.

The question remains: which flavour? The pure, 100% anarchist kind (anarcho-communist, or ancom), or the more pragmatic kind (allowing private property, and employer/employee relationships; anarcho-capitalist, or ancap)? Since private property is inborn into all live; live that spends finite resources to acquire items like a nest to breed in, young as a result of satisfaction of hormonal urges (a biologist might say to the reason beings have those urges (Richard Dawkins famously wrote a book about genes wanting to be reproduced), I disagree with that, because the urges are simply there, they may result in certain effects, but that does not mean that those urges/the hormones that drive them, are sentient, goal oriented beings), etc. Think of a toddler that has found a toy. It may be a sharp toy, but it will dislike having it taken away nonetheless. Children will fight over who gets to play with a particular toy, when the floor is covered in unused toys.

Thus private property, is the perfectly standard mode of natural affairs. The only way to keep people out if doing that is by having a big, evil, aggressive, coercive government apparatus. So, the USSR is the inevitable outcome of socialism, utterly negating the concept of anarchism. (No-ruler-ism).

This means that all anarchism,will be ancapism or it will simply not be anarchism (and be hell on earth instead). I think the definition of anarchism should include a reference to the NAP, since anarchism means nobody tells you what to do, so long as you don’t aggress on them.
Also, ancapism is the only way to ensure environmental protection: since when the last few rhinoceroses are privately owned, people will want to view them, touch them, and pay good money for the privileges, the money can be used to finance the upkeep of the magnificent beasts, and to feed the owners as well (and his staff). Meaning the owners will want to protect their investment. And so work to ensure survival of the species, for the love of money.

Look at two species of animal: the aforementioned rhino and the cow. Cows are financially useful, so the species is maintained. Rhinos are not allowed to be the property of anyone because that dishonors the glorious creatures. So they are threatened with extinction on a continual basis. Because nobody feels compelled to endure their safety. The measures to stop poachers are inadequate, because there is no sufficient incentive to stop them.

If there are more than enough rhinos left alive to form a credible breeding population, the funding may also come from hunting permits.

Political theater

Climate, Terrorism…
So much all of politics is political theater, such as terrorist campaigns in Arabia; they do nothing to stop terrorism, in fact; they only cause more (counter-)terrorism. Think of it in terms of dieting: to loose fat, it isn’t just enough to be hungry; one must also change the sorts of foods one puts into one’s mouth, or the chocolate will keep turning into fat. Look at Mark Haub’s Twinky-diet, Mr. Haub “wanted to show that Atkins was wrong, and that it was calories that mattered in fat-loss,” but instead he showed that unless switching to eating non-fattening foods (fat & protein), he would have to starve himself senseless by limiting to a very small amount of chocolate-covered pastry (Twinky’s are rather fattening, though of course, they don’t represent much in the way of food: they’re not very filling, the pastry is fluffy so it’s mostly made of air).
BTW Atkins was right about one thing: it’s carbs that fatten you, you can have all the fat & protein you want and not grow fat (-ter). Of course, to start LOSING fat, a caloric deficit is stil needed, but to prevent starving yourself senseless and not losing any noticeable amount of fat, one would have to stop consuming fattening foods, or the fat lost through hunger, will be replaced by new fat.
(I know the process is more complex than that but in simplest terms, this is the core of the matter)

I digressed into that fat loss bit, to illustrate the fact that, to stop terrorists (the problem of being fat), one would have to stop creating new terrorists (by terrorising innocent Arab civillians; eating chocolate), the only way to keep people safe from terrorist attacks: helping them lose fat is not to terrorise the local population with Stasi-practices, arrests by the secret police (disappearing people)
As Machiavelli wrote: on whether the prince needed a castle: “the only castle the prince needs, is to not be hated.” So my view that Islamic counter-terrorism is caused by western terrorism is not even very original! I was so happy to find out that an authority like Machiavelli had already written about it, so long ago.
Similarly, to reduce CO2 emmissions, the junta in charge will have to start realising that they’re the ones that are causing them; by refusing to cope with the traffic jams (eating too much chocolate), the people (being powerless; after all the country is a democracy) would be happy to reduce emissions (lose fat) and be utterly elated to not be stuck in traffic, for the first time in living memory.
But instead they keep up this political theater, getying thwmselves invited to talk shows on TV, lamenting the horrible emissions / dreadful threat of terrorism…

Hitler’s defeat was not necessarily a good thing

Looking at the grand scheme of world affairs, Hitler’s defeat at the hands of the allies was a questionable thing, the bad effects of which resonate to this day.

Hitler’s defeat resulted in Stalin fencing off eastern Europe, where he would set about making the lives of people there horrible.  Of course, Hitler had his SS and Gestapo, which made people’s lives hell all over western Europe. And in 1944 the nazis caused the hunger winter in the Netherlands (in a move similar to Stalin’s Ukraynian starvation) as punishment for the resistance. (A move which will not have endeared the nazis to the people, but in their power madness they missed that bit: “all it takes to bend the peiople to,our will is more ruthlessness”).The cold war that followed WW2 has not only caused numerous deaths in Africa, Latin America, Arabia and Asia, but also resulted in counterterrorist attacks that keep the world aflame as of yet: 9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (in alphabetical order), and the juntas of the west continue to fight fire with fire. (Read next post)

The reason the Ukraynians fought with (not against) the nazis against the Soviets, was because they had suffered tremendously under the Soviets. 5 million humans were deliberately starved to death in the 1930s: “extermination by starvation.”

Of course, Hitler’s war was ideologically motivated: racial purification. Stalin had also purged his army officer corps from jews, which contributed to the Russian military defeats in the beginning of Hitler’s campaign.

Population density as a mechanism of influence

The population density,of the Netherlands is over 10 times that of the USA. Therefore: so long as European countries bears the brunt of immigration from countries that benefit from American foreign policy attention, the US population will not put pressure on the US government to stop terrorizng the world.
Of course, the Arab continent is so much closer to the European continent, so the refugees are more likely to coe to Europe thanto America.

Population density as a mechanism of influence

The population density,of the Netherlands is over 10 times that of the USA. Therefore: so long as European countries bears the brunt of immigration from countries that benefit from American foreign policy attention, the US population will not put pressure on the US government to stop terrorizng the world.
Of course, the Arab continent is so much closer to the European continent, so the refugees are more likely to coe to Europe thanto America.