Government of the people, by & against the people

Thinking of #apartheid got me thinking: the black South African suffered, but the white South African did too, especially when they spoke out against the government’s Apartheid-regime. That regime earned South African people sanctions which isolated South Africa socially and economically, which armed the interests of the people, which were against the government’s apartheid regime, something which they were powerless to do anything against, because it was the fucking government that did it. Sanctions against the people only help the government harm the interests of the people.

Different example: Sanctions against the Iraqi people over Saddam’s misbehavior. The guy was a fucking dictator! What was GWB thinking? “Oh, if we cause avoidable suffering among the people, Saddam might get a change of heart.” Yeah, cause his benevolence really shone in his torture prisons and his repeated executions of cabinet ministers. If he shot his relatives through the head in cabinet meetings, imagine how many qualms he experienced in governing several millions of people he did not know, that were only a statistic.

By the way: #Saddam was one of the many reasons for #9/11. Because Saddam received monetary and operational support from the western governments, the suffering people there developed feelings toward the puppet masters in the west. The #MiddleEast was an important play ground for the #ColdWar players in DC and Moscow. After the collapse of the #USSR, there was really only one country left to take revenge against; the USA, not the USSR (true, they could have attacked mother Russia, but they chose America. At least they chose to attack the white house & Pentagon, 2 valid military targets: on top of the WTC-towers which were civillian, but they were important cogs in funding the war machine that caused such suffering among Middle-Eastern people. So it was not the American people that were under attack, but the regime, that frequently sent the people’s children to die (whether in an electric chair for a crime, or on the battle field, for the greater glory of the regime, in a needless & unprovoked war, like those in Vietnam, both cases of Iraq, Bay of Pigs (Cuba) – which only served to oust Castro – objectively a good thing, but not if they wanted to install a pro-Amerucan puppet like General Fulgencio Batista, which would lead to a new communist dictator taking the place of Batista Jr., with who knows what violence resulting from that)…
So here, the American people suffered the consequences of the DC regime’s actions (which they had 0 influence on, so the lie of a “demoratic government” must be annulled now. Governments can by definition not be democratic. Ststelessness is democratic, having a bunch of infantile nonos tell people what to do and what not, is the opposite of democratic).
Somehow it’s always the people that suffer from the blowback from a government’s misdeeds. Not also how the atomic bombs were not dropped on the cause of theJapanrmese government’s aggreelssve behaviour (the Japanese government in Tokyo, itself), but on the Japanese people that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this case, by dear providence, the Japanese government surrendered, possiby not out of concern for the people in the two towns, or

Throwback to the bad old days

GWB’s attacks on iraq and Afghanistan are worse than anything in the bad old days (and this time, those days may be here to stay).
Think: the hippie-generation got riled up about Kennedy’s brutal slaughter of #Vietnam, and they’ve come of age in the Reagan-era, then they became a force to be reckoned with. The brutality of US terrorism against the Vietnamese even went so far, that one of their own helicopter crews opened fire at the US soldiers. That isn’t counting the countless rapings of young girls.
So this generation caused #Reagan to have to go underground, and perform his terror by way of other countries (ever wondered why #Israel gets its top of the line war jets for free? They don’t: they had to perform democide in Guatemala & elsewhere in South America with them, but there are no up-front costs).
Anoter terrorist nation supported (operationally & financially) by the US, was Hussain’s #Iraq, iirc it was Rumsfeld who was caught on tape, shaking the violent bastard’s hand when telling him that the American people have gone round with the collection tin, to support your regime, and here are the millions of dollars you need to continue killing people. It was the same Donald #Rumsfeld who was among the aggressive war-hawks, aching to invade Iraq after #9/11 (which it has been sufficiently demonstrated, they had nothing to do with.).
The regime also unashamedly invaded Afganistan, because Bin Laden had moved into a cave there.
A transparant excuse to grow the empire by violent means (how else?), at the expense of countless lives – on both(!) sides. If it were really about acquiring or killing Bin Laden, thry could have sent in a small #CIA-team, sure, it would have killed a lot fewer people and it would not have raised the government debt by as much as it did, both key objectives for modern governments, but it would have gotten the job done, and the people didn’t give a peep when the Dubbya-clan undid it all the gains at keeping government in check. Not helped in the least by the communist tendencies of the former protesters (now in more influential positions, in the MSM, in government), that only want to keep government in power using any violence necessary.
So all that was good (the only thing) that came out of the #Vietnam war has been undone, aided by a lazy, complicit MainStream Media (#MSM), that refused to do its job of keeping the government in check, but instead chose to go along with all the propaganda. Not only did they get away with a bunch of wars, they actually drummed up support for them, helped to a quite distressing degree by popular entertainment that glorifies gullible teenage-assassins from poor families as “real American heroes”. Instead people are now glorifying the flag (the political institution), in fact, they can get quite angry when you’re deservedly critical of the political institution, somehow they take that personally.
I feel that the #leftists (in the msm) dropped the ball on purpose, because, well, a big government that can get away with stuff, is a powerful government. Therefore an ideal government.

Gulag 2: money

So I’m back from special exposition in the Resistance Museum in Amsterdam ( And I would like to say a few things about how it relates to contemporary politics:
Firstly: there is the lesson it taught about money. (And how fiat currency is not momey). How did gold get adopted as a money? Because lots of people wanted it for its looks and properties., plus it has industrial applicability, which is why people substituted gold payments for direct #barter (labour is bartered for gold: gold in turn is bartered for goods & services, making it easier for people to find a place where people would accept their skills/labour, and vice versa
In the Gulag-camps, having good shoes could make the difference between #live or #death. So people used them for payments (for what? Perhaps for some fly-invested grass- soupcsme people would cook, in their so very scarce free time? – and often the flies were the only source of protein) because real boots (not pieces of bark strung together) were so scarce that owning a pair would put you at risk of being stolen from.
If your shoes broke, you had to walk barefoot through the snow. Or in the uranium mines, or in the woods, for the logging operation. You wouldn’t get sent home on sick leave or whatever. That’s what made shoes so very valuable and suitable as a #currency/#money.

(The second thing I had to say, I said in another post, just follow the tags Gulag or Goelag (Dutch language posts)

Homo homini lupus est 2: Gulag 1

I just got back from the Resistance Museum in Amsterdam (, they have a very good exposition, today there was also a special feature on The Gulag.
This inspired me to write a bit more on “Homo Homini Lupus Est”, Hobbes’s phrase meaning that “man is a wolf to his fellow man”. Especially so, when given power over said fellow man. There were some video segments of a documentary about the Gulag.
One of those segments, they portrayed a Russian classroom when the subject of the Gulag was brought up. One of the pupils was asked: “Was the terror and murder of millions worth the economic benefits the Gulag-system, yielded?” And the boy actually weighed the pros and cons!
Let me first say that the economic benefits were not all so great: Stalin wanted a railway through Siberia: after several tens of thousands had perished there, Stalin died, the project was halted and never resumed. But the project would never yield a return on investment. It’s just that everyone was too scared of Stalin to stop his preposterously grandioze plan.
I would answer the question as follows: “Who is supposed to benefit from the economic development? The glorious leader? Or the population.? (By whose grace the self-deluding despot’s job exists at all?)”

The seeds of its own destruction?

Friedrich #Engels was able to finance Karl #Marx, because Engels was the son of a wealthy entrepreneur. Engels and Marx both famously opposed entrepreneurship. Marxism inspired communist dictatorship, which as we know was a disaster for the esstern-European people (proletariat), unlike #capitalism, which had lifted the western worker up to great affluence, even the poorest households tended to be able to acquire toothpaste, unlike even the elite in the #communist block.
So, basically, #capitalism made possible the ideology that spent 3/4 of a decade fighting it (and didn’t really stop with the collapse of the USSR; there are so many communist activists in the west that try to overthrow the free-market-way of life – Al #Gore, Naomi #Klein, …) So did capitalism carry the seeds of its own destruction?
I tend to disagree. Capitalism (I use that as “free-market”) simply means that people are free to make their own choices, unlike communism/socialism, which is all about the state imposing its will upon others. Since capitalism is a different kind of ideology (Strictly speaking it’s not about #politics), unlike #communism which is about how many roles the evil institution should play) it is not an ideology that fights other ideologies. I know, the cold war between #communist east and capitalist west disproves that, except it wasn’t really between communism and capitalism, now, was it? It was about control of the earth by one nation or by another nation (#4thReich), it just so happened that the west, in spite of all its socialist faults (and there were so many: starting with Central Banking, over-regulation of markets and more) tended to be a bit freer & wealthier than the east. So socialism, with its more violent nature, tends to destroy anything it gets in contact with, and is the side most likely to pick a fight and attempt to impose itself anywhere it can, because socialism is all about politics, and politicians desire power for (abuse of) power’s sake. Businessmen desire a comfortable life, so wealth for comfort’s sake. Hence proper capitalism is not about abuse of power, so proper capitalists don’t really care if the state is governed one way or another: of course, the presence of a state tends to diminish the virtues of capitalism, states automatically lean more toward socialism (totalitarianism).

Why bother?

Why bother with elections? When the bloodthirsty rabid vampire aka #Barrack #Obama was in the white house he started 7 wars, during 8 years (1095 days, not including leaps, which would only add insult to injury) with 0 days of peace. So my hope for the Don was that he would be less violently inclined. Yet, in response to what’s basically fake news, he decided to have another Arab country bombed (#Syria) over dubious reports about a gas attack by the president on “his” people; the attack by the globe’s policeman cost so many citizen’s lives (the soldiers called to attempt to repel the attack were extracted from the citizenry). Thids way, #Trump’s foreign policy closely resembles Obama’s. So why bother with elections, if nothing’s gonna change?
Ps in my considered opinion, #peace is the most important issue in a country’s politics, because war leads to:
Reduced safety/security (counter attacks, drafted citizens murdered on the battle field)
Economic doom: (read about the peace dividend (summary in English: war only destroys, builds nothing, so only profits a tiny clique called the #MIC; society as a whole suffers.)
Social disruption: freedoms (movement, gathering, speech, …) are restricted. Also: society is made crazy scared about a demography (jews, muslims), causing psychological/emotional harm to the population, and possibly inciting racial violence.
Another example as to how elections waste time, is the comment made by PM Mark #Rutte (the anti-democrat), currently heading for his third term. At first there was the threat that the crypto #communists of GreenLeft would be allowed into the cabinet. Luckily they proved to be uncapable of taking the responsibility of #government. When that option was (blissfully) eliminated, #Rutte announced that GL’s darling policy subject (climate) would still stay a factor in government policy. So, why bother not voting for the cryptocommies, then? If their policy gets adopted by government, no matter who wins the elections? That’s #cheating of the #voters! If you explicitly vote against a #policy, they go ahead and do it anyway.
Maybe it’s because of treaties they signed (no: the Paris agreement was not a treaty, but an agreement), then such treaties are an exercise in the deliberate sabotage of the democratic process, to make sure that the policies of a certain ruling party get to continue, in spite of them being bumped out of power by a fed-up population.

Secret police

Think about it: the concept of #SecretPolice has no place in a country. It is such a nasty concept, that governments deny its existence – up to a point (hence the name “secret” police): of course, when people start disappearing, eventually, news gets out.
Such organisations police the population, protecting the state against the only thing that enables the state to exist: the people (note that I did not write that “the people legitimize the state”). But surely, if the people allow something to exist, they can revoke that permission? Especially when the thing develops harmful intentions toward them.