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

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

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.


Kores-veteraan Puister zou zo zijn bajonet weer slijpen.
Een bewonderenswaardig sentiment, maar het zal niet nodig zijn (noch wenselijk). Want: Noord Korea is en communistisch land, en dus straatarm. En dus: kan het zich geen oorlog veroorloven, ze zullen er alles voor over hebben om dat te vermijden. Stoere taal van de Kim die toevallig aan de macht is, is niet meer dan een bedelbrief, om zijn zwijgen af te kopen.
Buiten dat alles is het arme volk daar zo afhankelijk en hulpeloos gemaakt doar dat regime; als dat plots wegvalt (denk aan een actie van de luchtmacht of de CIA), houdt de hongersnood nog erger huis daar, en het zal waarschijnlijk leiden tot een brute burgeroorlog, omdat ze daar helemaal niet gewend zijn om enigszins voor zichzelf te zorgen.
Dergelijk “regime change”-beleid waar DC zo dol op is, heeft al geleid tot 9/11 en IS.
Mijn advies om van die Un af te komen: maak de wereld zo vrij en welvarend mogelijk, zodat NK vanzelf verschrompeld.

On corruption

One might hear the argument that #capitalism, with its basis in #greed is most susceptible to #corruption but in reality it’s socialism that is most lends itself to corrupt practices, by: increasing poverty, causing people to be more desperate for basic (but in socialism quickly unaffordable) amenities such as food, clothing, shelter, drink (water, not alcoholic per se).
Also, not to forget: in socialism, all pay (apart from the party leadership, of course) is equal, regardless of work. So the sewer-cleaner has the same pay as the farm inspector/ harvest collector who can be bought off with a small sack full of potatoes,to feed the inspector’s hungry family, and turn a blind eye when the farmer sells another portion of his harvest on the black market. Meaning that socialism requires thousands of civil servants to violate their own interests, for the good of the socialist dream of the party-leader. How do you think that will go over time?

Compare this to the situation under #capitalism/#voluntaryism: Where the level of #wealth is considerably higher, while also being more fairly distributed (not all wealth is reserved for only the party-leadership)
Poor people in the west typically have, say, a car, a wardrobe with fresh changes of clothing. Sure it may not be a #Lamborghini, or Hugo Boss-clothes, but under voluntsryanism, you have a choice of plenty of cheaper brands of both,rather than just the one brand with the considerable waiting lines that invariably result from central planning.
Capitalism harnesses that greed and uses it for good: this is plain Adam Smith: the baker does not supply the hungry with fresh bread out of the goodness of his own heart, but out of his desire to buy a house to live in. The house huilder builds & sells the house at a reasonable price for his own selfish reasons: if he would insist on a price nobody would be able to afford, he wouldn’t be able to sell the house to recoup his investment. Meaning that in capitalism, all people benefit if the rest also benefits.
Of course: the best way to avoid corruption is by removing the opportunity for people to get corrupted, namely government with its regulations, licensing restrictions, etc.


I just realized: those assassins, that manned the towers along the iron curtain, what was wrong with them?
What drove them to it, to kill their fellow human beings?

  1. Sadism?
  2. The urge to blindly follow orders? (Milgram/Nuremberg)
  3. Bloodlust?
  4. Fear of reprisals?
  5. Bribery (salary)?

Re 1: The desire to keep their fellow humans from escaping the open-air prison
Re 2: part of the “2 Stans” / the Nuremberg defense (I was just following orders)
Re3: the wish to kill people, since government is an institution of #aggression, it isnit surprising that it would attract people with a propensity for this
Re 4: this would become an infinitely long list of people willing to shoot each other
Re 5: Even so, it would involve sadism, because surely some border-assassins would some day find out that live was hell for the people, and they had a very good reason for wanting to escape, and border-murderer was quite a lowly job in the hierarchy of government, quite far removed from the snobby party-apparatus (elite) which got the serious amounts of money/privilege, and kept their hands clean. Besides, I thought all socialists were supposed to make the same salary, diferentiation in reward for different jobs (meritocracy) was a capitalist thing, Marx preferred “to each according to his need.”


In dit artikel (duidelijk geschreven in de teneur van een angstige,  bezette bevolking), worden de Russen (Sovjettroepen), als de vijand neergezet. Even daargelaten dat de #Sovjets inherent vijandelijk waren (jegens de eigen bevolking), is dit soort (opzettelijke) naamsverwarring kenmerkend, vindt ook nu nog plaats. De #nazis trokken naar #Rusland om de #Russen aan te vallen, dus waren ZIJ de vijand! Maar ja, dat schrijf je natuurlijk niet wanneer diezelfde vijand de magische macht van de natiestaat, waarin jij gevestigd bent, in handen heeft. En dezelfde vijand die dagelijks bombardementen uitvoert in Arabië, hanteert dezelfde #newspeak, in het westen.

Statenloosheid is beter voor de samenleving (& economie)

Redenen dat er zoveel vreemdelingen worden binnengehaald, in Nederland, zijn:

  1. Dat onze overheersers weten dat veel burgers zich eraan ergeren. Sadisme.
  2. In uitdieping van punt 1: de groepen burgers tegen elkaar uitspelen (verdeel en heers): machtswellust – libido domini.
  3. Met het smoesje van “de kosten van asielopvang verlichten”, worden asielzoekers als gratis verpleegkundigen aan het werk gezet, om daarmee de loonlasten van ziekenhuizen (en dusverzekeraars) te verlichten – loonpolitiek.

Dat veel burgers zich ergeren aan immigratie van kansloze #buitenlanders, bezorgt weer veel stemmen voor de PVV enz., zodat de traditioneel linkse partijen zich daartegen kunnen afzetten en contrasteren. En een #PVV kan zich lekker afzetten tegen een #GroenLinks. Dus hebben beide elkaar nodig, om hun (potentiële) achterban uit ongerustheid op hen te laten stemmen, bang als ze zijn dat “extreem rechts” aan de macht komt.

Punt 3 (loonpolitiek) leidt ertoe dat er geen #verpleegkundigen meer opgeleid zullen worden (niemand neemt nog dure inheemse verpleegkundigen aan en ze zullen ook nooit meer dan een hongerloontje krijgen; tenslotte zijn #asielzoekers gratis en dus oneindig veel goedkoper), waardoor die opleidingen verschrompelen en er nog meer banen verdwijnen.
Een evt. tekort aan verpleegkundigen zal moeten worden aangevuld vanuit het buitenland, waardoor er nog een andere groep belanghebbenden (lobby-groep) bij komt, die buiten de verkiezingen om het internationale beleid beïnvloed: de verpleegafdelingen in ziekenhuizen. (En de boekhouders uit die ziekenhuizen, en de boekhouders van de zorgverzekeraars). Deze chaos wordt onnavigeerbaar voor politici die zicjzelf om de eoa reden heel capabel vinden.

Dit ondermijnt dus het toch al schrale concept van parlementaire democratie nog verder.

Deze problemen kunnen alleen bestaan, door het gekunstelde concept van een over- (kuch!) heid. Oftewel doordat die bende machtswellustellingen fijn op kosten van de samenleving diezelfde samenleving kan tergen / uitpersen. Als die gekken alles zelf zouden moeten betalen, zou er stukken minder immigratie zijn, in elk geval van kanslozen. Die zouden in de regio van oorsprong worden opgevangen. Die paar die toch de oversteek over de Middellandse zee zouden maken, zouden op eigen kosten in een vrije woning of hotelkamer terecht kunnen (als toeristen of verhuisden), of zouden door organisaties van bezorgde burgers kunnen worden opgevangen. Doordat die organisaties er hun eigen geld in steken, worden zij selectiever in hoe dat geld zal worden besteed.