“Mayor Sadiq Khan is to blame for terror attacks”

Actually, in defense of Mr. Khan, the attacks in Europe would not have happened if the junta from DC, whose policy is now continued by president Trump (time to get the promised draining going, Donald!) would not have terrorised the peoples of Arabia (Persia is next on the menu?), Asia, South America.
Of course, the European dictators are equally to blame, for their keenness to participate in the #FourthReich’s #Terrorism

For some reason, it fails to dawn on politicians that people don’t respond well to bullying, regardless of where they live.



Als Trump geen vrijhandelsverdrag wil sluiten met Rutte, dan moet Rutte maar eenzijdig het vrijhandelsverdrag afsluiten, dat is beter voor de Nederlandse consument. Als Rutte Nederlandse producten duurder wil maken voor Amerikanen, is dat slecht voor Amerikaanse consumenten, niet Nederlandse.
Als Rutte echt b****n heeft, gaat hij voor een boycot van Amerikaans wapentuig. Dat is versntwoordelijk voor de grootste inkomstenstroom naar Amerika. Over opheffing van die boycot valt pas te praten, wanneer Amerika ophoudt met terreur van overzeese landen. Dan zou Rutte een prijs verdienen, en heel veel respect (terug-) krijgen.

Eenzijdige vrijhandel houdt de producten betaalbaar voor Nederlanders. Dan kan Trump ze nog zo duur maken voor Amerikanen, maar dat is iets waar Nederlanders weinig last van hebben. De Amerikaanse econonie is nog niet genoeg hersteld van de strafexpedities van Obama en Bush, om zich dergelijke strafmaatregelen te kunnen veroorloven.

Indochinese evidence

For any evidence that the evil that governments pour millions of dollars, lives and tonnes of #CO2 into fighting its owbn messes, one can look at #ISIS, but another example would be the spread of communism. Because both in Africa as well as Asia (in this example: Indochina/Vietnam) the western occupying colonists called themselves capitalists, so when the locals wanted to fight for freedom, they turned to the USSR.
The same is happening in Arabia: #NATO is bombing desperate people into the embrace of IS on a daily basis.

A classic illustration that armies suck at defense

When Napoleon attacked Russia for the 2nd time, Alexander the great’s troops managed to chase him off back to France. Paris would not have fallen into Russian hands, if Napoleon had not provoked the Russians.
Luckily for the Parisian population, Alexander behaved more like a liberator, not a conqueror.
So in its own way, the occupation of Paris was the equal of 9/11.
The existence of armies is a threat to the (safety of the) people of the nation.

War averted

To quote from AnythingPolitical.com’s post about the Trump-Kim summit (quoting Trump’s tweet about it)

“Everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Trump went on to say that North Korea was no longer America’s “biggest and most dangerous problem.”

  1. On the one hand, hooray for Trump (& Kim)! WW3 is now unlikely to break out over DPRK. Amazingly, Trump is the furst prez in living memory to have avoided war. I’ve heard rumours about Obama having averted attacking some country¹, in spite of covert political pressure to waste more money, destroy more lives, but still, the TK-summit is quite unique (and cheerful)
  2. On the other hand: what monstrosity will be concocted to fill the gap left by DPRK? A greater emphasis on Iran (as per Gen. Clark’s “7 wars in 5 years”– plan?) or will they start a new crisis? Return attention to Latin-America, just like in the good old days (a make-work program for the old Latin America-desk in the CIA)?

¹) According to the government, it’s not a war, if the victim cannot defend itself, so then it’s legal.
Whenever I see a person in a wheelchair, trying to mount a sidewalk, or whatever, I do not feel the urge to kick the poor fella out of his chair, onto & along the street, only because it’s legal, since he can’t defend himself. That’s because I’m not a politician.

Interpretation of data on Carbon Dioxide

On this blog, I’ve written a Dutch post ( https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/180604-interpretatie-van-grafieken-ipcc-data/ ) about my interpretation of these data: http://www.ipcc-data.org/observ/ddc_co2.html (English), the graphics seem to indicate that before, during and after the Kyoto treaty, CO2 kept rising increasingly sharp. Keep in mind that (apart from perhaps Liechtenstein and Bhutan), all governments aee totalitatlrian, meaning that they busybody the total collection of aspects of the life of all citizens. So, at the very least the people could have expected a reduction in the speed of CO2 increase. Didn’t happen.
Meaning either one of these:

  1. Humanity has no discernible impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so none of the economic terror committed by politicians can be justified.
  2. Politicians have made every effort to maximize CO2-levels, ie by means of increasing traffic jams (example: Dutch politicians for the last over half a century), or by sending expeditionary armies all over the globe (example:#4thReich). Modern wars are fought using tanks, planes, ships, etc that emit enormous amounts of CO2 (not counting Echelon, the computers of which need water cooling, that’s how much energy they burn, just to listen in on Merckel’s phone calls – Merckel was an ally of Obama! And Obama was one of Gore’s high preachers, and responsible for 7 wars in 8 years. Both had a Nobel prize for peace). Politicians are committing climate terrorism.

Either way, the economic terror is unjustifiable (as an aside, neither is the military).