Anarchists have a lot of #StockholmSyndrome to overcome
Als je al speciaal sollicitanten moet selecteren op afkomst, moet je dan niet nadenken over het soort werk dat je doet? Misschien moet dat veranderen… Naar een soort werk waarbij afkomst niet uitmaakt.
Als je afkomst moet gebruiken als middel om minder ongeliefd te worden, klopt er iets niet.
Trouwens, selecteren op,afkomst is racisme.
En ten derde: als je echt,meer allochtonen wilt hebben: houd dan op in je dagelijkse aanhoudingspraktijk allochtonen aanhouden voorrang te geven boven autochtonen,aanhouden. Gut, ik kom de diagnose van schizofrenie steeds vaker tegen te komen bij de roverheid.
Zelfs een zeer gematigd mens begint zich intussen af te vragen wat er mis is met het instituut.
En toch blijft u door de Haagse junta verplicht om lid te blijven van pensioenfondsen. Corrupte bende.
“Want wat gebeurt er anders met de vastgoedsector?”
Die vastgoedsector wordt overigens door de politiek gesaboteerd en dus ook de pensioenen.
De politiek verbiedt het winkelklanten (die verplicht de winkelpanden subsidiëren) om bij de winkels te parkeren, waardoor de winkels failliet gaan en de vastgoedinvesteringen afgeschreven moeten worden.
Dat je al geestelijk ongezond moet zijn om de politiek in te gaan, wist ik al. Maar schizofreen?
Het aangekondigde verbod op aardolie-brandstoffen is om meerdere redenen schandalig. Enkele (economische & milieu-gevolgen) heb ik reeds eerder genoemd. Ik wilde u nu attenteren op de volgende:
Eerst worden er grote hoeveelheden belastinggeld verspild aan subsidies om mensen zo ver te krijgen om voor evengoed veel geld, hybrides te kopen. Uw waanzinnige verbod (2030) op aardolie-brandstoffen is ook een verbod op diezelfde hybrides welke u met zo heel veel tamtam en evenzoveel geld eerst heeft aangemoedigd.
Hoe halt u het in uw harsessen?
Uw eigen beleid spreekt uw eigen beleid tegen!Schizofrener dan dat kan niet!
Helemaal als we meerekenen dat de hoge CO2-uitstoot de schuld is van de staat die al een halve eeuw (pardon: 52 jaar, dus RUIM een halve eeuw) de files weigert op te lossen, en dat nu, nadat ze de leugens van Gore heeft omhelst, nog steeds doet. Dat is niets minder dan landverraad.
Michael Moore’s documentary, titled “Where to invade?” was shown on Dutch TV, recently:
You might not expect it, but Mr. Moore and I are actually quite in agreement on some issues.
It’s too simple to just pick and choose a few items, like how Italians have lots of paid leave, etc. In fact, the Dutch have that as well, but, according to:
Dutch productivity per hour is among the highest in the world, but due to the low number of working hours, Dutch productivity per work year is less impressive.
(Don’t forget: automation & tool-use are big stimuli of higher productivity)
So sure, having lots of time off, helps make the time you do work more productive, but since one doesn’t work so much in total, the productivity isn’t as high as it could be.
Of course, Michael Moore being Michael Moore, he sits there looking very impressed when the Italians tell him that the government introduced laws imposing such working conditions on Itaian employers for the workers of Italy. And the unions fought hard for it as well. There’s the rub: fighting, instead of reaching mutual agreement. Time for real progress, instead of remaining stuck in the antiquated hostile employer versus employee opposition, which is not in the interest of any of the parties involved
And here’s another problem, Michael: you can’t pick and choose a few things from other countries and transplant them to the US, and have government impose them on employers. Sure, it may cause (briefly) a mild rise in productivity per hour. But why not have a few employees ask for such working conditions during their job interview? Why impose them? Since the atmosphere in Italian factories is very pleasant, people are more willing to do the work/go the extra mile. Add to thst: the fewer laws there are (the smaller government is), the happier people are. Let’s not forget: not only factory-floor employees are people, but the people employing them are people, too.
The employees could then choose between higher salary or more luxurious working conditions.
It is beneficial for employers to have staff work fewer hours, because that means the lighting in the factory/office building can be turned off: lowering utility bills. And given the litigeous culture in the USA, the amount of time employees are exposed to potential hazards they can sue the business for is reduced as well. These are some of the arguments, applicants could use to negotiate labour terms when applying for a new job. If the employer agrees to that, they may become more attractive to future job seekers, and find it easier to hire new people (for lower wages). There is a balance of expenses (wages, utility bills, restaurant, etc) and income (productivity) that may mean a better bottom line, that could be explored.
Sure, it may take some time to reach the same levels of welfare as is reached in Europe, that’s something that may never happen. And that needn’t be such a bad thing, given how (as quoted above) Dutch annual productivity is actually fairly low, because there aren’t enough hours in the year. But depending on how many applicants ask for it themselves and how many employers will agree to it (also vv: how many employers will start offering it by their own volition), it may happen real soon. Which will lead to a better atmosphere all around, because it’s people doing it for themselves; they get a feeling of achievement from that, instead of feeling everything is run for them, outside of their control.
This may lead to the USA becoming the shining beacon for all other countries to follow, and a new economic power house (whichit usedto be, but it slipped a bit) That event is in the hands of the people (not necessarily of the unions – which I consider to be of the same level of undesirable as government: employees won’t have the same feeling of achievement when the union does it for them or when the legislature does it for them. So they won’t be as happy/proud; productive).
This post is a sequel to:
Another, more positive way of thinking of rulers, is:
They may think they’re in charge: responsible for the state of the country, but people do what they want nonetheless. It’s the people that are the elephant, the politicians are the riders.
So it’s because of the people, when a civil war has not yet broken out. In spite of politician’s best efforts to start one I might add. The people sometimes break a law here and there, which keeps things running smoothly. It’s not the “wise, benevolent” rule of the overlords that does do. For instance, people crossing an empty cross roads, in spite of the stop light being red, reduce emmissions and should be rewarded, but instead are being fined, because they are a threat to (non-existent) traffic.
Now, of course, politicians appeal to the elephants in the people’s minds. The elephant in the elephant’s mind, if you will. This is sometimes called populism. Other times people call it demagogy/propaganda, yet other people call that public information campaigns.
I call it scandalous, like with the efforts of politicians to ifluence the vote of the referendum on the association treaty with the Ukrayne. Think about that for a mo’: the politicians (that claim they only execute the will of the people) openly tried to steer the will of the people!
If someone decides to impose their will on millions of others, that can’t be a sign of good mental health.
Human like to fool themselves into thinking they make rational choices, but they don’t. The subconcious mind is in active control most of the time (the elephant and it’s rider; the rider aka conscious mind thinks it tells the elephant – the unconscious mind – where to go, but that’s only post hoc foolery on behalf of the powerless rider).
Combined these two should make it clear that the ruling caste makes insane decisions, which they neatly justify in front of the TV cameras, but which are only based upon gut istincts and primal emotions. Even if they don’t know it, they only make decisions about what makes them feel nice. Since they are not very nice people (egotistical sadists, in fact), these decisions are bad for the people.