Why I feel anarchists can’t believe in god

Not only anarchists, but also people that are affraid of climate change.
The unwholesome plans of the juntas from the Hague, London and Paris to ban travel per 1030/2040 respectively, will not do a thing about climate change.
When I speak with people, they say that “Oh, I don’t expect that will go through.” Really, what’s your plan to stop them? Just hope and pray to god?

Of course, if one believes in god / wishes to do so, that is entirely up to you.
But how would one pray to god to stop climate change/climate policy, and to stop the climate policies the juntas (of the Hague, Paris, London) plan to impose on the people?
Like so?

Dear god, please stop politics. Their climate policy is going to hurt us exceptionally badly. Without influencing the climate one bit.

Dear child, I doubt that I will. Because I appointed all the kings that founded the political institutions that you just asked me to stop.

Also, the pope is my envoy on earth, and he sides with politics.
Given the above: would you not say that Albert Riefenstahl (stage name: Gore) was right about CO2?

Dear lord, science does not work with majority vote, but only bases on truth. Which is why science has nothing to say about opolitical issues, politics can not exist without lies, so anything that politics touches will become tainted with lies.

Besides that, politics is busy destroying your creation, by way of the efforts to maximise CO2 emmissions (through warfare – jets, tanks), traffic jams. To anyone who genuinely fears CO2, both of these practices are a nightmare.

In case CO2 is not the main driver of climate change – which all objective science points to, btw – the reduction of CO2, (if ever achieved) will lead to global starvation, due to reduced photosynthesis. This is an attempt to kill your creation. The fact that you let the adversary (in biblical terms: politics is literally Satan) get away with that, proves that you ether do not exist, or are not the heavenly/divinely good being the church makes you out to be.

Case closed; god does not exist

The names may change, but the mentality never does

Back when there were still national currencies in all European member states (near the end of that) when the regime wanted to impose the common currency, the Euro, people were unhappy about that. The reaction of politicians?

Oh, what do they know, he pitiful sentimental retards? They keep clinging to the past, we are so much smarter than them. So we’re going to impose the currency anyway, because know what’s good for them, better than they themselves do.

(that did not turn out so well for the economy, now did it?)

And, some while later, when there was a referendum about the association treaty with the Ukrayne, (much to their disgust, the people had forced a referendum) some politicians actually campained to have the outcome of the referndum turn the way they desired. Such is the level of democracy in the Netherlands. And some even had the nerve to complain that the “no” vote in the referendum was only because voters were opposed to Europe (Dutch membership of)

Just like Soviet communism is the inevitable outcome of socialism, the way Dutch politicians despise the people they rule/lord it over, is the inevitable outcome of so-called “democratic” rule.

Picture yourself in, say, medieval Europe…

Picture yourself in, say, medieval Europe, with kings and castles everywhere, and peasants paying protection money to the king. So that the king can pay for an army to try and protect his influence over his income-producing peasantry.
If a neighbouring king wanted to expand his kingdom slowly, farm by farm, that king would confiscate a field here and there, and that farmer would then be forced to pay protection money to a different king. Not much changes for the farmer. He is stolen from any way, regardless of which king it is, that needs the money, to fend off attacks on his castle
Now translate this to the modern age, where the king-slash-president-slash-prime minister has an army to try and protect his source of income, and he forces the source of his income to pay for HIS defense.

Now, where in any if these scenarios are the interests of the farmer protected by the king’s continued survival?

In defense of some sort of interventionism

Not referring to how the west (in particular the #4thReich) bullies all sorts of countries into living under its thumb, but rather the kind that is very unlikely to generate such blow back as 9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (in Alphanumerical order). If you disagree with how your neighbor treats his family, by all means stand up for them, and arrange an intervention (with permission of the family)

Btw: no, it wasn’t the Arabs that hated America for their freedoms, it was the “Bushians” that hated American freedoms, given how they used that tragedy to impose the (unconstitutional) Patriot Act, which cancelled so many freedoms (and protections) Americans enjoyed.
Ps: isn’t a president inaugurated by swearing to uphold the constitution? By signing such a flagrant violation of the constitution into law, didn’t Bush2 nullify his regime? (Nullifying the Patriot Act itself, and every other thing he signed before and since)

Stossel: Let Them Be!’

The junta in Madrid got awoken by the #Catalonian displeasure with them, so responded by sending in armed bastards, to beat the love for Madrid into the people. Only a government…
They even pretended that Catalunya had to ask permission from #Madrid, to express their opinion about Madrid. It seems pretty likely that the opinion will be negative, doesn’t it?

Further proof Hitler was a socialist

“Hitler was not a real socialist!” There must be something wrong with your ideology when you have to denounce its most succesful proponents. Yet socialists/communists Continually do so, because Hitler is impopular. Incredibly there are those that defend Venezuela, for its equality (Karabolut of the Dutch SP.)
Yet, what is socialism? Theft to give away to more PC people. What did Hitler do, to alleviate the housing shortage in Germany? He stole some land in other countries, to give to the people of his own country. How socialistic is that?