Sigh… conspiracists drive me nuts (an elaborate treatise on “Big oil”)

I’m sorry for the length of this post, but I had no choice but to spell it out to make those simpletons understand it.

With conspiracists I’m obviously referring to the desperate warmists that warp their panties in a pretzel in order to ignore the illogic of their claims. For instance: car makers and “big oil” are trying to undermine “real” global warming science, and wage disinformation campaigns. Why? Well obviously, because VW makes petrol engines. Yeah so? They make diesels too, and you can get them to run on LPG as well, if you add some equipment. But they also make cars and actually, it’s their cars that use the engines they make. So yes, they will very much be willing to adopt a new fuel technology when that becomes de rigeur for cars, in order to be able to continue selling cars.

Come on… Please!

Analogy (showing how ridiculous the claim is):
It’s clear why one of the largest typewriter companies in the world was fiercely opposed the computerisation of offices, because they would lose marketshare and disappear from the face of the earth if everyone would switch from typewriters to computers.
This is the reason why IBM lobbied for laws putting a stop to the installation of computers in offices. Also they have waged a thoroughly comprehesive, long-running disinformation campaign disguising themselves as the largest maker of mainframes (S/360 through to z/Series), and the inventor of the PC (later supposedly developed into the PS/2 with it’s dedicated operating system, OS/2, also running on older-architecture PC’s, which they did not return to making when the PS/2-adventure proved to be a failure. Because they were making PS/2s with Micro Channel Architecture extension cards/slots, not the older (slower) Industry Standard Architecture extension slots, and obviously they could not make the transfer back, which would be the third time they changed the architecture of the computers they were making:

  1. mainframes – PC’s
  2. pc’S – PS/2’s
  3. PS/2’s – PC’s

This excludes the ttanafer from type writers to PC’s.)
This entire ruse, in order to discourage other companies from entering the lucrative typewriter market, and instead to have them waste their effort trying to enter the dead-end, fictitious PC market. How cunning of IBM! The devious bastards. But they were effective though: thanks to that, the type writer business is exclusively theirs! They have no competitors, so now sell all type writers that are being sold.
I can confidently make that claim, because nobody makes / buys typewriters anymore, whereas the machines dominated the business machine market (hence the name International Business Machines), they have been thoroughly replaced by computers.
In order to prove yhe falsegood of this elaborsteclaim, I point you to the logo: the letters IBM divided into 8 lines, for the 8 bit computers they were making & selling.

And Nissan, to pick a car company, also maemkes piston engines for crude-oil-derived fuels, yet now they also produce the Leaf, a full-electric car, and use it to boost their image.
So, what would “Big oil” do? Become big hydrogen, or big solar, or whatever: they’ll adapt to changing circumstances.

Advertisements

Beetje laat, maar vooruit: weg met VWS

Lijkt een beetje laat, maar is dat toch niet; aangezien Rutte3 toch niet lang meer bestaat, is dit juist ruim op tijd.
Het is kiezen of delen: een ministerie van verkeer, òf een miilnsterie van klimaat. Aangezien de hoge CO2-uitstoot wordt veroorzaakt door de files die allang opgelost konden zijn, maar nietmogen, werkt het ministerie van VWS niet, dus schaf dat maar af. Gewoon, weg ermee en nooit meer terug. Scheelt weer een heleboel belastinggeld dat de burger moet betalen, en waarvoor die in de file moet staan, om te werken om dat geld op te brengen. Dus, door beide ministeries aan te houden stijgt de CO2-uitstoot alleen maar.
Beetje krom, niet? Of zullen we maar direct de diagnose schizofrenie stellen?

Piet

Het viel eigenlijk wel te voorspellen: wanneer de brulapen hun mening aan anderen wensen op te dringen (door die anderen voor rotte vis uit te maken) terwijl die anderen (gewone burgers) nog nooit enig kwaad in de zin hadden, gooitlde de burger de kont tegen de kribbe, psychologen noemen dat “reactance” (kort gezegd: reactie op ingeperkt gedrag).

Nu de aandachtsverslaafde Piet-protesteerders hun lolletje hebben gehad,  kan de burger eindelijk proberen de scherven op te ruimen, en weer verder gaan met het leven. Nu maar afwachten welk ander probleem zij zullen scheppen om op TV te komen (en misschien zelfs in de kamer)

Analysis of howler monkeyism

I first started using the term “howler monkey” as a name for Social justice warriors, because SJW doesn’t translate so easily into other languages. The term did seem astonishingly accurate, because like the species Simia Belzebub (the furry ape-like kind of howler monkey (from hereon forward referred to as simia)) SJWs are genetically friven to making loud, unpleasant noises (so unpleasant that the first westerner to encounter them, considered their behavior to be hellish enough for that name). SJWs care more about howling hellishly than about achieving the thing they claim to howl about.

Their incessant howling (whenever there’s a camera and microphone nearby) only results in the behavior they use an an excuse to howl, to get exacerbated, much to their delight. This is called reactance, and the concept is widely known among psychologists.
Take, for instance, the fuss about the innoccuous children’s figure Black Pete(assistant for St. Nicholas), who is black because of all the crawling up and down the sooty chimneys to put children’s presents into their shoe, and take out the carrot the child put there for St. Nicholas’s horse.

Their allergic response to this innocent figure resulted in much social disturbance, and a looming (though fortunately cut short) political career for the head howler,

Sylvana Simons.
Knowing what they know about reactance, they continue to behave in that manner, thus ensuring a continuous supply if excuses for howling. 

They may not even all do it deliberately, I genuinely believe that some are genetically so handicapped as to not have any other option than to howl like this. Having said that, there is bound to be a portion of them that is so evil as to act that way, by design. Whst with them being left wingers and all (leftism is inherently evil).
Though, I now realise it’s more of an umbrella-term for the entire left, instead of solely identifying SJWs. Still, the above still stands.

Parentification, when it happens to families/societies

Parentification, when it happens to families, may only be the result of benign practices;

  • Children whose parents’ divorce was a nasty fight
  • Children whose parents were addicts
  • Children whose parents were handicapped (physically or mentally)
  • Children of asylumseekers.

(All of which I’ll still consider benign, because there’s no harmful intent by the parents behind it);
Marinka Kamphuis, author of the book “Te vroeg volwassen” (“Adult at a too young age”). https://www.boompsychologie.nl/product/100-2524_Te-vroeg-volwassen distinguishes four categories of ways children deal with it, including these two:

  1. Some provide the need of care by their parents; they support, encourage, settle; are easy going and goody. Have no chance to speak of their own needs, talking about themselves maksz them the feel being selfish or difficult.
  2. The opposite of that is the child that has to remain a child; to meet the parent’s desire to care. These are often youngest or handicapped children that are kept small and dependent by the parents clampingonto their important role as care giver. Kamphuis calls this “passive parentification”, and according to some psychologists it is the worst possible kind. Because if one’s parents do not allow one to develop autonomy, one will not learn to take inititiative or responsability; one cannot handle disappointment. This will be a lifelong handicap.

Here I recognise the poor millennial, who was raised in a horrible manner: at sporting events they earned medals by just showing up: no matter the effort that went into the exercise, they earned a medal. Meaning their self respect never got kindled. Now they feel worthless: they try to compensate by clamping onto whatever cause gets thrust into their face and fighting for it: this means that they put maximum effort into e.g. #ClimateChange, in effect trying to please their overlords. The damage of that would be limited, but their overlords are also our overlords, so everyone gets to suffer the effects of their destructive upbringing.

Which is not their fault! It is the fault of the people that callously experimented with their youth, destroying the lives of everyone, all over the planet, in the process. Goodness forbid, but some of these obssessive activists will also enter the profession of politics, which is another nail in the coffin of the institution: another reason to abolish it now, before the damage it inflicts becomes permanent. Millennial activists are drawn to the most outrageous causes, because those have the best potential for offering self-worth. So they inflict outrageous aounts of damage, andbecone outraged when someone identifies it as such.
Another point that dawned on me when I read about parentification, is that politicians (the more socialistic, the worse it is; remember, they are all socialists to a certain degree, from left to right) parentify society, make citizens feel worthless/incompetent/utterly dependent on the care of the parental unit (the “leader”).
This in turn is harmful to society and to the individuals that make up society (in so far as there is a difference), and unlike that described above by actual parents, is done by design and for the purpose of making the politician feel awesome and awesomely needed. Providing more fodder for the position that socialism is antisocial and egotistic, and brings nothing to the world.

Scientific evidence against the state (psychology)

Psychological studies demonstrate that mankind is not suited for the concept of political leadership.

I just read an interview in psychologie Magazine nr.1 from 2016 (yes, its old…) with professor of evolutionary psychology at the Vrije Universiteit (Free University) in Amsterdam, Mark van Vugt. In that interview, Van Vugt revealed some conclusions from studies into leadership (both elected and leadership in general). I translated this quote from page 90 of the magazine:

Our brain has been formed in a time that leadership – then physical in nature – was primarily a physical matter. Bodily qualities (muscular strength, tallness, willingness to take risks, courage, et cetera) were important. But in our time, those qualities are demonstrably less important: most leaders work in offices and don’t have to impress or intimidate or directly compete. Instead they must take big decisions for large groups of people in complex environments. Yet, job-interview committees still have a prehistoric way of looking at their candidates and primarily choose tall, strong men that exhibit bravery, while the job really has other requirements.

Question: Did such mistakes not occur in prehistory?
It never happened that a stranger got to be in charge of a group of hunter-gatherers. Everyone knew the person they chose as leader through and through. Not only physical qualities but also his personality, because people continually lived among each other. Meaning that there was no possibility for deception. Nowadays, for lack of other information we still use rater superficial properties, such as tallness, charm and a letter of motivation.
One’s followers chose one to be their leader. Because one displayed good ideas and demonstrable qualities. Leadership arose bottom-up. In primordial times, there was no social inequality, there were no possesions, so not so much competition between people.

Psychology has long been based on a faulty image of man. We should more often ask ourselves: what is the evolutionary origin of our behaviour? What are the purpose and the mechanism behind it?

Elsewhere in the interview, he mentions studies that have demonstrated that greater equality leads to better results than authoritarian leadership. From which I draw the conclusion that political leadership (despotism) is undesirable : it’s better to have a society where millions people are not forced into a subservient role, due to a lack of political power, or political prowess (backstabbing, lying, cheating, deceiving)
That’s not the type of equality that socialists like Bernie Sanders, or Jesse Klaver (leader of GreenLeft, the cryptocommunist watermelons that are responsible for so much environmental damage) talk about, which in fact is the exact opposite.

In random order, I would like to summarise two further proofs of the undesirability of (political) leadership, the two Stans.

The first Stan:
Phil Zimbardo’s “Stanford prison experiment”
This study demonstrated that people can’t handle being in charge of other people, they’ll,end up tormenting their underlings.
This was dreadfully emphasized in Abu Ghraib prison.

The second Stan:
Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority” (“the electrocution study”)
This study demonstrated that people are unsuitable to being lead, being given orders, because they have the unfortunate tendency to follow them, even when the effects on innocent people are horrible: such distress that death is a real risk.

Goelag 4: hedendaagse politiek 2 (toekomstige)

In Rusland, is men zo gewend aan de Goelag (iedereen heeft wel een familielid dat in de Goelag heeft gezeten), dat het weinig opzien baart in de volksgeest.
En #Poetin wil dat die smet op de landsgeschiedenis geen aandacht krijgt. Denk je eens aan de westerse staatsterreur: stel dat er geen #revoluties komen die de ahterhaalde gedrochten van natiestaten de prullenmand van de geschiedenis in vegen, hoe zouden toekomstige generaties dan omgaan met de schande van de staatsterreur/het continentbrede fascisme, die er nu gebeuren / dat nu in opmars is?
Hoe zouden toekomstige generaties daarmee omgaan? Als ze slim zijn zullen ze  het van zich afschudden en doorgaan met hun leven. Tenslotte hebben niet burgers dat gedaan, maar politici. Sommige burgers juichten misschien wel die politici toe, maar zij hebben zich laten beïnvloeden door de demagogen. En ja: ZIJ (die goedgelovige burgers/politici) moeten zich schamen – het is maar de vraag of ze dat kunnen – maar het is nergens voor nodig dat ze zich gaan schamen voor het wangedrag van de politici, zelfs al waren ze uit eigen vrije wil & tegen beter weten in zo goedgelovig om zich voor het karretje van manipulatieve politici te laten spannen. Zet gewoon die politici aan de kant en ga je eigen gang. Veel beter om zulke toekomstige dilemma’s te voorkomen.
Stel dat sommigen het zich wél gaan aantrekken, wat voor gevolgen zal dat hebben? Het is nu (2017) al politiek roerig, kun je nagaan wanneer men zich gaat opwinden over dat men o.a. #MKUltra / #Waterboarding en #GuantanamoBay heeft toegelaten ( dat heeft men niet gedaan: de #politiek wilde het, en over politiek heeft de burger niets te zeggen)