Motie van wantrouwen

Brief gestuurd aan de Commissie voor de Verzoekschriften en de Burgerinitiatieven:

Bij deze wilde ik u vragen om een motie van wantrouwen jegens mininster Ollongren, omdat zij duidelijk niet op haar gemak is, in een democratie: dat is wat Nederland veinst te zijn en dus mag zij weg. Ze durft het volk te bekritiseren om haar reactie op decennia aan roverheidsbeleid – beleid waar het volk al decennialang – vruchteloos – tegen ageert.
Het volk smacht om gelijkheid, het zijn juist o.a. de partijgenoten van Kajsa die die gelijkheid te vuur en te zwaard bestrijden, en meer macht voor de roverheid wensen. Als juffrouw Ollongren ook maar 1 democratische haar op haar hoofd had, had zij uit protest tegen de schandalige formatieprocedure van Rutte3 (nog minder democratisch dan Mussert1) de ministerspost geweigerd, en had zij zelfs uit haar lidmaatschap van D’66 opgezegd.
De Haagse junta blijft druk bezig het PVV-complot te volbrengen, en te zorgen dat Wilders meer dan 50% van de stemmen haalt bij de volgende verkiezingen, en daar is niemand bij gebaat.


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.

Laughing at castles

The concept of military defense had always been laughable, especially the thought of having a ministry/department of defense that only ever causes the need for defense in/from other countries. Fair enough: it’s to cry at, not to laugh at, but you get the idea.
Not only am I unable to come up with any example of succesful national defense by a government’s standing army, but even castles were spectacularly weak defensive constructs. Walls built a meter thicker than de rigeur? Then an attacker will spend a bit longer digging underneath them, or sling more rocks/explosives at them. Then, there are of course the diseased animal corpses which an attacker could sling over the walls, spreading the plague among the castle’s inhabitants, forcing them out. The moat was quite useless too: basically, it was only invented, because otherwise the drawbridge made the lord/king the laughing stock of the castle-owner’s club. “Beware: the enemy approaches!”
“Quick: raise the bridge!” “Why bother, my liege? Since they can just walk across the grass.”

Castles were designed to fend off last year’s attack. And once built they could not easily be remodelled to incorporate defense against the latest offensive strategies.
Besides they were sitting ducks, whereas an attacker was a roving fox. Needed a trebuchet to break the walls? Invent one. Or starve the castle by removing its access to food or fresh water.

As Machiavelli put it wisely:

“The only castle the prince needs, is to not be hated.”

Instead of heeding Mister Machiavelli’s advice, today’s politicians are so aggressive, they erect castle walls to hide behind from even their own castle’s population (citizens), yet they increase the risk of attack and so endanger the population by making the castle as hated as they can.

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.)

On immigration

IMHO the state has no say on immigration. It’s the people that are affected, so,they are the ones that should have a say in it. Like chosing whether to sell/rent them living space. Freedom of association. After all, who complains when someone moves house from one city to another?
You wanna stop the aversion against immigrants is the state’s involvement in social welfare, through compulsory payments. If only the state would keep its mits off, immigrant haters would have much less hatred of immigrants.

Controversy stirred

Posted this in,the group Anarcho Debatism on Facebook:

To be honest: I’ve long felt that Ben Gurion was a bit of a neo nazi. You know: taking away the lebensraum from the untermenschen to give to the ubermenschen.
There, controversy stirred.
Rule: don’t call me (or anyone else) an antisemite or a racist, because I’m not.
To preempt any claims that it was the ancient home land of the jewish people: that only stengthens the call for a free society, one that respects/is based on private property. If one had the documents to prove that your great-great-great-ancestors owned the land (and it was taken from them), then a large part of the middle-eastern conflict would have been avoided.

Novel-idea: No Napoleon

Sulppoze Napolein had not existed, or had not been as succesful as he had been; there would not have been compulsory schooling, resulting from the Battle for Jena (Prussia), the history of the (western) world would have been so different would have been so different:

So then there would not have been the conditioning of pupils to respond with delight to the Pavlovian bell at the end of every hour. Only a population conditioned as such would be good soldiers, or at least good (quiet, obedient) citizens.
Napoleon only had amateur soldiers, not professionals, but he used so any of them that Wellington, who was aware of Napoleons successes on the battlefields and had expected/hoped for a “worthy adversary” was dismayed when he discovered Napoleon’s tactics were those of a “mere pounder”