הפרד ומשולהפרד ומשול, فرق تسد

The title reads divide et impera (divide and conquer) in both Hebrew and Arabic, indicating my point that, to (some) western conquerors (politicians), the muslims of today are the jews of 70 years ago; easily blamed for every loose nut and bolt.


They only serve the political purposes of opportunistic politicians, that abuse their existence to gain power (both as in seats in parliament and in passing convenient laws that restrict the natural rights of citizens) over their backs. For instance, one Dutch power-horney MP has invented the concept of islamisation (the ongoing replacement of Dutch ttraditional culture by an Islamic one, or: encroachment of Islamic culture onto the traditional Dutch culture). The only manner in can be said to occur, is not through malicious intent of muslims (voters for this Geert Wilders guy, like to bolster this claim by pointing to the more political phrases in the coran; claiming that they clearly wish to conquer the whole world either militarily orby immigration, or by – forced – conversion) but, rather, this is the result of “forced” immigration of Arabs.

Divida et imperia in the low countries

The left enjoys disrupting perfectly smoothly operating societies, because divide and conquer works so well for the political apparstus. In fact, they like to get their votes from immigrant populations that ought to know better than to vote for people that transparently set entire segments of the popuoation up against eachother. By crying racism any chance they get, even when an incident is clearly the fault of an immigrant, then also pointing the finger at the caucasian native. Inspiring resentment of immigrants among the caucasian natives.

Free stuff

Another beloved practice of theirs is: to forcibly distribute scarce resources among immigrants; e.g. prividing them with free health care, free housing (have I already mentioned the housing shortage since 1946?), all at the cost of natives that have been grumbling about this for decades, but (in the finest Dutch political tradition) were kicked in the teeth by the ruling caste for that; the left simply enjoys “redistributing”. As in they like to organize society to their liking.
This results in short-sighted aversion (hatred is a big word, but getting more and more appropriate here) against immigrants.
Who are only guilty of getting lured by the free goodies – can you blame them?


And then making the mistake of voting for the most hostile and opportunistic of all politicians; left wingers (and that’s saying something). Making them disliked by native voters, that feel victimized by the left (and, as proven by the constant theft, rightly so!) and therefore try their best to vote against the left.


Or so they think. In reality, Geert Wilders (PVV) is a very left wing politician hinself, wishing to transfer ever more power ronbthe population to its rightful home: politics.
So voters try their hardest to diminish the left (well, some of them do) by voting “against” them, for the PVV. And Wilders himself blatantly tries to go nazi-style on muslims, trearting them like jews were treated in the 1930s; blamed for every ill under the sun, made out to be intellectually, culturally and morally under-developed, as compared to natives. Thus stirring the nationalist pot, blaming the big, weak EU-borders, and hoping to wheen The Netherlands away fron the failed European project. In itself, a noble goal, bykut trying to turn the Netherlands into a private fiefdom, sounds ominous.


This is how a free region (country) will defeat

An invading state.
By free region I of course mean a stateless area, by definition not a country, hence the brackets
And don’t say that the free peoples (by definition more pesperous than the state) (and more motivated) will be unable to fend ff an invading nation.
That statement ignores the development societies have gone through since the era of Roman occupation of all of Europe (even including part of Britain, up to Hadrian’s wall).
Both social and technological development has left the developed world (the west) in a far better state to fend off statist attackers.

For instance, long-distance communication is now much easier, especially among communities which are not on a war-footing with each other, like the differing tribes were in the days of the Caesars, because those were essentially micro-states, with all the (micro-) negatives which that entails. In the centuries since then, societies/countries have learned to value cooperation over strife.
And hopefully even, in the post-state Europen continent (which is the example I’ll be going with in this post) enough people will be so fed up with memories of the (macro-) state that they will succesfully prevent the founding of any new micro-states. (Even if some will be tempted to found them¹).
One way that the invaders may try to invade/occupy a region, is by sending in ground-troops. These troops will likely get beyond decimated, because in the free region, guns are likely quite common (not made illegal by the occupying government), and the population will be armed to the teeth and also and angry at and quite motivated to fight off the invader. So unless the invader wishes to kill everyone on site to just acquire enough living/working space for their nation, then the invader will get slaughtered, quickly losing the support from the home front, which keeps losing its children to a useless and unnecessary war. Wen the nation-state wishes to get its mits on resources in the free region, it is much easier (and cheaper, safer and faster) to just buy them. The people will realize this, and will have to start repopulating the nation (at, say, 50 years of age) because an entire generation will be killed off (and unable to pay taxes), unless the despot is stopped.
Technological advances need not be an advantage against the rebels. Just because none of the rebels have jet fighters, and the state does, does not mean that they don’t stand a chance. In fact, it is most likely to be an advantage to not have fighter-aircraft. Because the countries that do, they’d get locked into,a silly-arms race (during WW2 it was a bonus to have the fastest aircraft, which led to the Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter, that did not do much more than dazzle RAF-pilots, but was ineffective against Spitfires and Hurricanes, because it was much too fast for them. So all they did was burn up Germany’s scarce fuel supply.
Similar will happen when a nation attacks a free region. Its jet fighters will be useless, that’s not counting that some anti-aircraft systems may be developed/bought/rented
by the free people.
Still: imagine sending F-16’s out to hunt for rogue citizens.
That would be woefully difficult because those things are designed to destroy tanks and other fighter jets, not small roving bands of citizens carrying guns.
Not only would those overkill-machines not work, but even if they would they’d still waste resources. If you have any idea of the fuel consumption of a fighter jet, you’d know that it is a desperately preposterous concept. Their use can only be financially justified, when the supplying nation state subsidizes their use in their offensive wars of choice. You know, in the kind of regime-change terrorism, that the leader of the free world specializes in.
For a regime to be changed, there must first be a regime. It is quite difficult to impose a regime where there is none. Far easier to just take over, have the central leadership of a coubtry surrender. By bombing the centre of a city that is about 20 kilometers (± 12.4miles) away from where the central leadership resides (the nazis broke Dutch military resistance bybonbing Rotterdam. Having bombed the heart ot of Rotterdam, the leadership in The Hague surrendered, causing the entirr coubtry to be overrun by nazis, young women (girls) to get raped, resistance fighters to get tortured, innocent civilians to get shot or deported for slave labor, etc.). That is essentially the same as the nazis bombing Marseille and the Norwegian government surrendering.

¹) One mechanism by which this may be stopped is by fear of reputation damage making it harder for aspiring despots to do business with vendors (of food, shelter, etc.)


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?”)


Joseph Stigbits

Small wonder that Joseph Stiglitz proposes to ban Bitcoin, so called because of the threat to the economy. Stiglitz is a former employee of the world bank, a political organisation. And politics is responsible for all economic crises in the past. The great depression of the 1920s / 1930s wss caused by the fed’s inflating of the money supply; the housing crash was caused by the government pushing through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) http://www.federalreserve.gov/communitydev/cra_about.htm

The ECB is now digging a deep hole for the European economy.

So cryptocurrencies like BitCoin are a way out for the people. Just like they are for Venezuelans who are victimized by the communist junta that has devalued the Bolivar to the point oglf econonic ruin.


Novel idea: time travelling voter

Some inventor got so upset about politicians’ unrelenting attempts to impose communism, that he invented a time machine, and took one of the despots with him to the future, to make him/her himself experience the communist hell hole they were creating for citizens.

The punch line is, that they’re not traveling back in time to post-1917 Russia, but they’re travelling to post-2037 Europe (or America (north, middle or south) or whereever you wish to place this)


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.


How many Muslims are there in the world? | Reference.com


So… at the end of 2012, 23% of the entire world population (1.6 billion people) was a muslim, eh? (A number of them have been killed since then).
Now imagine, that the logic of Bush2 (GWB) made any kind of sense¹, and muslims were genetically predisposed to kill westerners. Surely, if that were so, Europe and the Americas would be entirely depopulated by now.
I maintain that being a muslim is a much more dangerous passtime than being a non-muslim.

BTW I still maintain that christians are much more dangerous than muslims.
Of course, not all christians are like that, only the ones in political power (in DC, mostly), commonly known as neo-conservatives.

¹) remember “They hate us for our freedoms.”?