A weighty matter

Cars are weighing ever more over time. Not just because even the very smallest ones are now available with heavy items, (like air conditioning) formerly reserved for the biggest and heaviest models. There is also the matter of regulations making cars heavier with crumple zones etc. And those heavier cars guzzle more energy, not just in production (mining/working more metals) but also during daily drives. True, they may be safer, but they are also worse for the environment. If consumers were to be left with a choice, maybe some informed ones would consciously opt for a lighter car, that was cheaper to run, and leave them with more cash in pocket at the end of each month, therefore more likely to have to drive to work one less day that month – causing less pollution – and exposing them tono danger that day.
Sees to me that giving people a choice sounds like a mighty fine idea, better than having god the all-wise president/king impose his will on people, “for their own protection!”

Advertisements

Overschot ministeries

Rutte3 heeft zelfs een minister van rechtsbescherming (Dekker)! Wat stelt zo’n pipo nou voor, in vredesnaam? En wat heb je eraan? Waarom valt dat niet onder strafrecht (zgn. Justitie)? Noemen ze dat een scheiding der machten? In plaats van dan de roverheid uit z’n voegen te laten groeien, laten ze dan wat taken afstoten en door (private/democratische) instellingen zonder de magische autoriteit van de staat laten uitvoeren! Daar kan een burger zich tegen verweren met juridische middelen, tegen een roverheid niet. Ook niet tegen de minister van rechtsgelijkheid, want zijn wil is wet, zo bepalen de rechters tegenwoordig.

Censuur of geen censuur…  wij moeten ons iets afvragen

Dat een rechter heeft bepaald dat de scheiding der machten niet meer geldt in Nederland, is zorgwekkend. Ook zorgwekkend dat geen van de (blijkbaar losgeslagen) politici Machiavelli volledig heeft gelezen, daardoor vinden zij het nodig om verboden op “haatprediken” in te voeren. Zoals Machiavelli schreef over de vraag of de prins een kasteel nodig had: “het beste kasteel is niet gehaat te zijn.” Maar ja, die sadomasochisten in Den Haag lijken vastberaden te zijn om gehaat te zijn tot op het bot, niet alleen door autochtonen, ook door allochtonen/buitenlanders

Bananenrepubliek

Ik ben het niet eens met Geert, doch ben ik van mening dat hij gerust zijn meningen mag blijven uiten (natuurlijk niet oproepen tot discriminatie). Maar hij heeft de ellende wel zelf over zich afgeroepen met zijn hetze tegen moslims/Marrokkanen, die weer het gevolg was van de linkse hetze die precies de andere richting op ging, want links heeft Wilders geschapen. Dus de angst voor een bananenrepubliek is een beetje laat.
De enige oplossing lijkt mij, om het zonder Haagse junta te leren doen.

Haat

In plaats van veel tam-tam te maken over een haat-imam, is het toch handiger om hun voedingsbodem weg te nemen?
Dst is in het begin even slikken, maar in plaats van heen en weer te wijzen met het vingertje, bereik je vast meer door de lessen van Mary Ruwart’s boek Healing our world” ter harte te nemen? Alleen de titel al geeft aan wat er hoognodig moet gebeuren. Non-agressie is de enige weg naar een prettige samenleving. Geef het goede voorbeeld: voorbeelden worden tzt. vanzelf gevolgd. Kijk maar naar een regering: die geeft altijd het voorbeeld, helaas is dat doorgaans het slechte.
Zolang we vanuit Den Haag niet het goede voorbeeld hoeven te verwachten, moeten wij als volk, maar het goede voorbeeld gaan geven.

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.

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.