Perfect irony

The economic fall of #Greece after (which came because of) the introduction of that miserable common currency (the €) had been predicted, by statisticians, using a tool called #Benford’s law, also called the first-digit law, an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford’s_law

This law does not proove, but rather suggests that falsification of statistical reporting takes place. The bookkeeping the #Greek government turned into the EU, before the imposition of the currency, threw up red flags with statisticians that suggested the EU look into it. They either did and failed to find the truth, or they didn’t because it would throw off their plans for the future of the EU. Either way, an offense worthy of dismissal, wouldn’t you say?

Now, regarding the title of this post: Benford’s law has been applied to the reporting of all EU countries, and where some passed the test with flying colours, in particular #Austria (spiritual home of a certain school of economic thought) and #Belgium (venue of the real and proverbial seat of the EU: Brussels) both failed the test, and appear likely to be hiding something in their reporting. Wouldn’t it be lovely of Belgium, the home of the European government collapsed economically as a direct result of the #Euro? It would be horrible for the citizens, of course, but it would also be laugh out loud hilarious!

Advertisements

Change, revisited

https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/a-change-aint-gonna-come-unless-you-make-it/

Part of the reason I wrote the above post is that I’d wish the evil institution (politics) would look at how they are causing effects they claim to be upset about. Classic example: I’ve mentioned it several times already: here in the Netherlands, the people have been suffering from traffic jams, for over half a century (in 2017: 51 years! Since 1966).

And the political movements that complain the loudest about emmissions (and climate change) are the ones that spend most time frustrating solutions for the transportation congestion question. Instead of making more roads they keep repeating the same lullaby: “Bus, train!” over and over again, which has never helped; instead of learning from that, they double down on the citizenry, to teach them (us) a lesson of obedience.
Of course unless they act, a change in emmission levels is never gonna come.
Yes, they must act, because they made the law such that only they can: the people are powerless (I have a whole pile of rejection notices from parliament, announcing they’ve received my letters and chosen to do nothing with them, so there’s no excuse, certainly no “Wir haben es nicht gewüst”.)

Referendums in Europe

BTW, if you can find a video by Matt Carthy MEP, view it, the guy’s brilliant, #UKIP has found a worthy spiritual successor. This is a very good one by @mattcarthy https://twitter.com/mattcarthy/status/915600381924790277?s=09

Spain had no moral right to declare this expression of the people illegal. They certainly had no democratic right to do so; a government (even a #junta) only ever has the right to listen to the people. Never any other right.

#Referendums in #Europe are a tragic cause: just look at the last 3 referendums held in the Netherlands.

  1. European constitution: rejected by a majority, so it was renamed and imposed anyway.
  2. IJburg (an artificial island in a river at Amsterdam to create more housing), rejected by 60%, but by way of a dirty trick (an advisory, not a binding referendum), the regime managed to have its way and cause all the environmental damage that 60% voted against.
  3. association treaty with the Ukrayne: the majority voted against, a blow to the prestige of PM Mark Rutte who was the serving president at the time (a rolling fuction, the person & country gets changed), so they desperately went searching for an underhanded means to,push it through anywau.

So, to sum up: #referendums (a #democratic tool) have no place in Europe, because there is no #democracy here.

Further proof: when, much to the displeasure of the political caste, the people had gathered enough autographs to enforce a referendum about the association treaty with the Ukrayne, the scumbags took to campaigning to influence the outcome of the referendum. That failed, so they did the next best thing and igored the outcone, tried to weasel their way anyway.

Don’t blame the Germans pt2

What I originally meant to say in my post https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/dont-blame-the-germans/ was that it was correct to not sue the Quandt family for any profits made by selling batteries for V2 rockets etc. to the nazis, or by selling uniforms to the imperial army a world war earlier.

These people were just trying to make a living under circumstances they had no influence upon.

Though:

It’s true that ruthless relentless legal pursuit of business owners like the Quandts (or those behind Boeing, Lockheed Martin,etc.) is the only way to prevent future wars by scaring them out of supporting the warmonger-regimes. It’s theonly way democratic regimes may be convinced to not thrust the entire nation’s economy & security onto the dumps by picking a war of choice (vanity wars, coz: “sending teenagers into the battlefields makes us look good & fearless”)

When a country has been defeated militarily, it is in a horrible state economically, so unless the people there are able to make a living they are doubly punished for something they had nothing to do with.

So, contrary to both invasions of Iraq, which commenced after only negligible planning, any time a regime feels the need to start a war, it must take into account what happens if the war goes as hoped (as well as when it doesn’t), and provide jobs for the citizens of the losing regime, to make room for prosecution of the warfunders.

This will not sit well with the domestic population of the victorious expeditionary army’s politicians, because the war is ruining their economy as well. (Don’t let talk of the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex fool you; perhaps a few industrialists profit, but the majority of the tax victims doesn’t) This means that the war just ought not to be started at all.

Another reason to not take it out on the industrialists is that regimes tend to steer the prevailing mood among the population to breaking point, to where a certain amount of people is foaming at the mouth with warlust. This warlust will affect the entire population to see to it that it’s considered a good thing to at least not hinder the war effort.

A historical lesson politicians won’t learn

Government is by definition not democratic. Even with a parliament (congress), of self-proclaimed “representatives” of the people. It’s still a minority ruling over a majority: #minorityRule is also called #oligarchy. And the people, not being able to exert any influence, resent being exploited and victimized. That’s why, when the allies defeated the Nazi-forces, and occupied Germany, they did not encounter any local terrorist activities. The German people were quite relieved at bring liberated from the jerk that had seized and abused power, and had thrust the world into war. “The people” had voted him in power, on account of the continued economic victimizationresulting from the treaty of Versailles, so they can’t really blamed for the consequences resulting from what they had no influence on (WW1), leading to something nobody asked permission for (WW2).
In short, in nation ststes, the people are victims of their overlords. Any party attacking that overlord, will be (initially) welcomed. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, after all, leading to a present-day sentiment of: “Vladimir, darling, how are you?”

Social contract

The “social contract” is supposed to say something to the extent of: “by living in this country, you agree to abide by government’s requirements.
Which could be considered as a justification for the iron curtain: because you were living in the USSR, you agreed to having us make your live as hard as humanly possible. Oh, and we don’t want to let you leave, because your persons are belong to us. !?!?!??

Apart from the (valid) argument “I didn’t sign that!”, how about: “contracts are between 2 or more parties” and clearly government (the failed state) is not holding up its part of the deal, by harming the interests of the people (not only Venezuela, DPRK etc. Do so but certainly every NATO-country which is provoking islamic counterterrorism, and also making war with Russia more likely by the day, by opening new NATO-bases, or holding military exercises, ever closer to the Russian border all the time.
That is NOT representative of the interests of the people!

Then there’s the economic malfeasance of toying with the currency, and so having caused depression after depression.

The following is inspred by http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/

See the bottom video (“You can always leave”)
Why should I leave? I’m not the one creating the bad situation, so why should the burden of departure fall upon me? (If I would leave – where to? Then I would leave behind millions of other victims for politicians, so leaving would be rather selfish. More pragmatically considered: if the entire population just up and left, there would be no country left for politicians to rule.
And besides, if I move into a different society, I implicitly sign its social contract, choosing to feel that the laws and customs are at the top of my list of most desirable ones (least undesirable ones). This leads to the following:

The only way a social contract might be used, is in this weak form:

“When people live among eachother, certain modes of behavior are more conducive to happy cohabitation.”

So people not killing, or stealing from, others, etc. would fall under the social contract. Note that the tit for that-mechanism (or fear there of) will do just fine for encouraging respect of the social contract: there’s no need for a big, extorting, bully, that breaks social contract rules itself (by stealing taxes from the people, by killing some of them – in war, or in a penal system)

It’s not the government I agree to by living there: by (attempting to) rule over us, they agree to abide to our rules. Because the state of nature is independence and so government is an unnatural construct on top of the natural state of being, government is only tolerated so long as they behave acceptably well, so in effect, the people can behave toward government any way it chooses to. Government is on the bottom rung of the social hierarchy (if even that high up, as to be on a rung at all).
Also, it’s society’s rules I agree to live in accordance with (regarding murder etc.), and since government is hostile to society, and in no way representative of society, I owe no allegiance at all to government.

Communism needn’t have been evil

As contemporary ancoms (anarcho-communists) are keen to emphasize, there has never been a real communist state. Since communism is supposed to be anarchistic, the centrally-led dictatorships we’ve come to know as communist, were only supposed to be half-way solutions to full-fledged communist anarchism/anarcho-communism.
That it turned out that communism was the worst political system to live under, with horrible totalitarian oppression and high death tolls following a meager existence at low living standards, reflects poorly on the ideology, the fact that it attracted such despots speaks poorly for Soviet-era communists and even (perhaps especially so) for today’s socialists who’ve had so much more time to experience different kinds of state-organisation than the followers of Lenin and Stalin had.
Anarchism (the supposed end state of communism) makes oppression impossible, because there is no state to wield its magical authority to force people into a particular mold. The fact that many of today’s socialists are such power-hungry despots, reveals much more about them than it does about socialism. Which of course had enough to complain about, even without all the failed attempts to run states (no more than systems for the care of the inhabitants). The failed state is a system which presumes that the citizen is to serve the state, or one where the state abuses the citizen.
Chairman Mao Zedong wrote in The Little Red Book: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
that quote speaks volumes for the mindset of those who adopt communism.
Again, my ranking of importance, with justification:
The citizen (since the emergence of bipedal life on earth for the longest time it has existed without state a.k.a. leadership)
The state (politics can’t exist/is nothing without citizens, think of an Afdolf orating in the bathroom, to his toilet bowl for lack of attendance at Nuremburg).