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?

How to vote

My dear fellow citizens of the world, may I please offer you advice on how to vote in elections?

If a candidate is known to be blood-thirsty, please don’t vote for him.
Example: George W. Bush. Signed off on a record amount of death-penalty executions, and started the blood baths (in the human, economic & political sense) called “Gulf War 2” and “the war in Afghanistan”. Causing the founding of ISIS (another excuse for even more ongoing killfare).
In short: if someone is known to not have any regard for human life, don’t hand ’em the control over the nuclear arsenal. No matter how strict they are about going to church every sunday (praying for war, no doubt). “Dear god, please give me an excuse for war, anything. I don’t know, hijack some aircraft or whatever, we can spin anything, honest. I’ll frequently mention you in my speeches to the American people out of gratitude.”

“God bless America”

Really? Again? Haven’t enough people died in the previous blessing?
Of course, if you consider (as politicians do) “the country” to be the political monstrosity, not the people, then his instruction for god to bless the political construct called USA makes a lot more sense.

Of course, to vote against GWB, you’d have to vote “for” Al Gore and we all know about him. On the upside, he might not have wanted to take revenge for losing the elections by killing the world, convincing all the wrong people (the ones in power) that it would be good to remove the basis of life on earth from the atmosphere: CO2.
So, as distasteful as the idea of a president Gore might serm, it may acrually have been better for the world in general. It might as wellnot have been though, so that is not really an experiment one would like to perform. But: at least we know one thing for sure: GW2 would have been launched anyway, because that was planned long before 9/11.

Import tariffs don’t protect workers

#Domald #Trump is a fool for reintroducing the fallacy of #importTariffs. Here’s why:

Let’s follow this centuries-old argument, posited by the Frenchman Fréderic Bastiat (1801-1850).
Exonomics is not just about what is seen , but very much about what is not seen.

What is seen:

Factories in China produce cheaply and undercut western factories, so if we raise the price for Chinese products, western factories can compete more easily. So if Chinese sneakers that sell for $100 are artificially raised to $200, then the western sneaker factories that can’t produce as cheaply as Chinese factories (partly due to western labour laws and excise taxes), can now compete again.
Workers can spend their income on other goods and services. Their jobs are saved.

What is not seen:

The raised price makes customers worse off, and unable to spend the $100 on (say) a pair of jeans. Meaning that the workers in the jeans factory lose their jobs and are unable to buy the goods and services they used to. So, they end up on the street, and a politician that runs for election promises import tariffs on Chinese jeans, to protect the domestic jeans industry, which got crippled by the import duty on shoes, not by the cheap jeans-competition of Chinese factories. Ad infinitum.

In short:

Import tariffs are stupid and harmul. If you wish to improve the competitiveness of domestic businesses:l; remove taxes on workers and businesses. It’s those that artificially limit competitiveness of domestic businesses.

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.