Who will hand out IDs?

Since it’s none of the state’s business who I am, or where I go to/have been to, the state has nothing to do with handing out proof-of-Identification. To be able to enter my own home, unless I built a lock into my door, that worked that way.
Basically, every lock does, but carrying a mechanical or electrical key is enough evidence of identity for the vast majority of people, or typing a code into a key pad is.
So why would I not be allowed anywhere near my own home without a piece of paper or plastic with my photo+name on it? And why are those passports designed so dumbly? Because the old design for a passport, did not have a rigid plastic card built into them, so they were too easy to forge.
So nowadays, the owner (assuming that’s the person who’s picture+name is on it, not the government) can not reliably travel to another country with a passport.
Because the brittle plastic card in it (used to display your photo, name, date of birth, etc.) has a tendency to break when you sit on it, or whatever, making it harder for you to leave or get home, and since that is supposed to be the purpose of a passport, that is something the government fails at again, and this time, it isn’t even one of their permissable roles; it’s just an annoyance/hindrance, that serves no real purpose.

“But if you let just anybody into the country,”

Then what? Would you get upset if you lived in, say, Amsterdam, and the house next to yours got bought & inhabited by someone from the city of Deventer? Different city, different province, even! But because its the same country you suddenly don’t mind. But if those people moved out of the city of Bottrop, Germany, suddenly it is an issue worth getting upset about. Germany is a country immediately next to the Netherlands, they actually share a border. How is moving out of Germany different from moving out of Overijssel (the province where the city of Deventer is located)? Of course, people get really upset if it’s people from, say, Arabia or Africa, those are even worse than Germany (or Belgium, France, the UK – they Brexited the EU, proof they don’t even want to be our friends anymore!)

“They would use all sorts of government (taxpayer funded) services.”

So? Just abolish government / remove those services from the claws of government, where they don’t belong, anyway.

“Well, people from Overijssel pay the same taxes as we do.”
So, shared #victimhood is your criterion for acceptance? So Stockholm of you, dude!
I would get upset, if they started paying taxes here: more loot for the evil institution, that is against my interests.

What is the only legitimate purpose of an ID? Proof of identity when signing a contract, you don’t need a government registration for that!

Looming #demographic crisis in #Europe

#European #populations are aging fast, meaning the large wellfare states are becoming unaffordable. Fools blame the European people for that, as if the people have any influence on how the country runs us!
I simply refuse to comdemn any children to this certain future of:

  1. Poverty
  2. Despair
  3. Opression
  4. Victimization by politicians

So don’t bring up the fashionable complaint of muslims immigrating into society being the only way to be able to continue to afford the costly (politically-propelled) welfare-state, which is another political monstrosity forced down our throats, which we cannot get rid of, without abolishing the whiole ridiculous concept of the state.

The problem is, that the “civillized” states of western Europe are democracies (as hinted at in https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/representative-repressive/ democratic derives from the Greek words demos – meaning as much as “people” – and cratos – “power”, so #democracy in the modern interpretation means power OVER the people. Never ever TO the people, oh no: that’s why every time there’s a #referendum here in the Netherlands, it’s never binding, only advisory; in case (in each and every one) the people want something else from what the government wants.
The only kind of proper democracy is #statelesness.

The totalitarian justification

The French did miss out on a brilliant opportunity regarding the EU by not voting for Le Pen. On the other hand it should not (no doubt it will, but it should not. It simply can’t) be taken as agreement with #Macron’s views of the #EU. There is no way that the conclusion can be drawn that the people wanted to stay in the EU. The French government, like all western-style “#democracies” is #totalitarian. So given all the aspects of life the government interferes with, it is inpossible to point to one single aspect and say that the election proved that this is what the people want.
Even with referenda it would be difficult. If the people would consider what the consequences of a certain vote for a referendum would be, they may imagine consequences ifthey vote yes, that bear no relation with reality. So, they may be spooked into voting “no”, though they may prefer to vote “yes”.
In the mean time, the #French did not do the rest of the citizens in Europe a favor by voting for the pro-European Macron. Which proves that there is no unity among the citizens of Europe, so: ditch the #EU already, the U is horribly out of place

Who actually started WW2? (& NATO v. Russia)

I’m,going on a controversial limb and say that Neville #Chamberlain started World War 2, by declaring war on #Hitler over the invasion of #Poland. Now, obviously, that invasion was a very bad thing, but so was the occupation of Poland (& other countries) by the #Soviets following #WW2 and the occupations of so many other countries during WW2., because Chamberlain, from London, declared war on Hitler in Berlin. The distance to Poland from the UK is considerable, and includes all,of Germany itself. So, a bit weird for the UK to have an alliance with far-away Poland. And Hitler’s response to,te declaration of war was to accept it, and to get his assassins close enough to the British isles, he had to invade the Netherlands, which was inconveniebtly in the way, but at least had a coastline with the same sea (the North) with the UK.

So enter 1940-1945 some of the darkest years ever for the people of the Netherlands my grandad was kidnapped, put to work in a labour camp, upon return home, my mum was conceived. So we could easily state that I owe my existence to socialism.

Of course the invasion of Poland should have been made undone. (And it should not have been followed by a Versaille 2.0, punishing the German people for the deeds of their rulers, wihch by definition they had no influence upon, so no sanctions.)

If not Chamberlain, who should have responded to Germany’s invasion of Poland? I would suggest, Stalin. Since Rusdia and Poland share a border, there was no country in between to get caught between a rock and a hard place. What was Hitler going to do? Invade Poland to take on Russia?

This could have been kept a local war. The fall-out could have been kept relatively small: no eastern block, no iron curtain, perhaps not even Russian ocupation of Poland (no NATO, no Warsaw-pact, perhaps not even an EU) If the socialists had tried that, western forces could have taken action against that. In the real 1945, they could hardly respond to Stalin’s decision to occupy all of eastern Europe, after they let the Russians do the hard work, fight the very hard battles. Stalin got angry at the western allies for not making their move quickly enough, while the Russians were already fighting, taking casualties.

It would have meant, at worst, that only Poland would be occupied by the Soviets (really bad, but all the rest of eastern Europe may have been spared the horror of three-quarters of a century of communism.

And the Afghani & Iraqi people would not have been invaded by a NATO-alliance, because there would not be a NATO.

And there would not now be NATO-exercises held practically on the Russian border, potentially provoking WW3.

One simple bit of restraint would have prevented two wars (plus the entire cold war and its miriad hot wars.)

So: Neville Chamberlain has many a dead milion on his conscience.

This whole post has obviously been predicated upon ignoring the guilt of Hitler for the invasion of Poland,

But since this post is really about the unexpected consequences of policy. We can add WW1 to the tally of gruesome wars resulting from policy. (That’s a bit unfair, becsuse ALL wars result from policy)

If Austrians had not invaded/occupied Serbia, the Iraq-war would not have happened, and #ISIS would not exist. Because: the Ottoman empire had joined the side that lost, and got broken up as a result, creating Iraq which got invaded over #FakeNews-reports about #WMDs there, resulting in Iraqi army-officers in an American #POW-camp founding ISIS.