I responded this in the comments section of this video https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c :
[Name removed] That means the hysteria used to force people into similarly harmful (but much more expensive) EVs is entirely misplaced; causes environmental & economic & psychological harm.
A much better idea to continue using cheap internal combustion engines, to produce more wealth, so that people will be able to afford to switch to EVs when the time comes. Renewability is no argument: there is so much oil in the ground: banning current geberations from using it, will keep it there, for even further future generations to not use it, because even further future generations will have to leave it there for ad infinitum.
Oil is probably not even a fossil fuel, but the product of bacterial processes.
[Name removed] will you please stop ridiculing yourself with the worn paranoid slander of “big oil is afraid people will stop using oil, is behind ads like this” because first of all, the electrical cables (insulation) and modern plastic car chassis, are MADE OF oil, so people will continue to buy oil.
And even then: big oil wil eventually reinvent itself as big hydro, big windpower, big solar, big whatever it is your conspiracist mind wishes to accuse of being big and mean.
I’ve written about this earlier:
About ships switching to nuclear power:
[Name removed] What a soothing solution: having potential 3mile island disasters floating all over the world’s oceans, and ships never sink, do they? #Greenpeace became famous for their protests against #nuclear #waste #dumping in the ocean, Medoubts they ought to support, the posible sinking of nuclear pre-waste fuels.
About one’s darling ideology (even about oneself) when one continuous to adhere to it, in spite of all its failings.
100 years since the Russian revolution, and many regimes (and murders) since then, some people are still socialists.
Or when one of the most succesful proponents of your darling ideology has to be renounced as “not a real socialist” (while he was a classical socialist, and a prototypical neo -ocialist), and one still chooses to remain a socialist.
Reflect on the ideology, and conclude that it is not worthy of support.
Aggressively defend the ideology against criticism, using slander snd sometimes even physical (deadly) violence.
This speaks volumes about one’s character, and even about the rigidity of human nature in general.
The mainstream media does not conspire to bamboozle the public. It only seems that way, because so many act similarly partisan. It is simply too much work to coordinate all the output of all the newsoutlets.
It is likely a matter of self-selection: who would choose to be in journalism (someone with some strong personal opinions on how others ought to be formed, i.e. ought to be informed), the colleges for journalism probably also play a role.
Anyone who went through all that (predisposition, then education) to graduate from college as a journalist, is likely to not deviate from the norm; if only because none of the colleagues are likely to stimulate deviation from the norm.
Also, self censorship in the name of job security, keeps them in line.
Neither does politics conspire to destroy all live on earth. Politicians attempt to do so, without a doubt, but they don’t conspire, which would require a level of organisation and self-discipline I don’t think they are capable of.
Again: self-selection by who would choose to be in politics (people with some strong personal opinions on how others should behave). Of course, anyone who would deem it a good idea to impose their will on others, can not be considered to be right in the head.
One does not rise through the ranks of political parties when one deviates (too much), unless some people in key positions deem that useful for their ends. This ensures that change is kept to a minimum.
Once entry has been self-selected, further resemblance to conspiracy automatically follows, because of the common tendency to follow a leader (also read: https://wp.me/p8008w-uD ), just like in a flight of swallows: they don’t all simultaneously change course, instead they follow the example of the bird at the front. Because all politicians are of similar intellectual and emotional make up (similar for journalists), they recognise a brilliant opportunity when they see one. And they then decide to really focus on climate policy (policy meaning taxation and regulation, which is what all politicians love more than anything)
While conspiracy theories are ridiculed on account of the required existence of central command by an omnipotent, omniscient overseer, actually: upon further examination, the phenomena called conspiracies have more mundane explanations .
Ter reactie op het artikel (burn out) van Rob Hoogland: mag ikvoorstellen, om het Finse schoolsysteem voor te stellen? De leerlingen daar krijgen bijna geen huiswerk, de filosofie daar, is dat de leerlingen vooral zichzelf moeten zijn, en maar in een boom moeten klimmen, wanneer ze daar zin in hebben. Hoe het zit met de hogere opleidingen – universiteiten, hoge scholen weet ik niet, maar de Finnen behoren wel tot de best opgeleidden ter wereld. Denk aan Nolia, Linux.
Karl Marx, in his best-seller horror fiction novel, fantasized about the abolition of capitalism, replacing that with socialism. Which would create the socialist/Soviet man. Who would work for free.
That seems to me, to betray how Marx’s mind worked: grasping at impossibilities to facilitate the impossible. Understand that private property has always been a part of nature, and you’ll recognize the fatal flaw in his reasoning.
If you want a society without money, then that society must be peopled by persons (by definition society is the people) who don’t want any reward for their efforts.
Compare this to man’s behaviour in statelessness:
- No longer exposed to the evils of/victimized by politics.
- Leaders always set the example. Regrettably, they are psychologically unable/unwilling to set the right example. And civs internalize the message.
- Removing the evil institution will find people that hated eachtother for living on the “wrong” side of the border getting along quite nicely. Old angers forgotten, because those arose from the statist bickering of politicians.
Also, politicians seem to only be able to think in terms of punishment. When they come to try to change the people’s behaviour, they always resort to taxing the crap out of them. (As a so-called economic stimulus; as if an actual economic actor would not try to lure customers to their business, by offering an attractive proposal).
And so, if the distorting influence of the great aggressor vanishes, expect all people to get along better and feel better about themselves.
Top that off with no desastrous economic policy (like inflating the currency to pay off the debt, force the people to spend more to re-overheat the economy)
Inspired by this post on http://anythingpolitical.com
(Putting on my statist cap for a wee moment)
It is not beneficial for the state (nation) that the chief of the federation of tribes is under such assault. It’s not just the news media that is partisan, but now also the advertising media are undermining his authority. Not desirable in the current political situation of the world (contributed to by Trump, but that’s not the issue: if the fuse lit in the powder keg under the world is to be defused, such acts are irresponsible.)
Of course, I’m all for undermining politician’s (imaginary) authority, since when the Democratic Party-voters (let’s be real; they’re freaking out about Trump the loudest) have zero faith in the Republican president, hopefully they will also lose faith in the office entirely, hoping (vainly) that this lack of faith will slowly spread to potential candidates of their own party as well.
But the world is so thoroughly divided along the one-dimensional political spectrum of left-right, that Democrats will probably just vote for the worst candidate in their own party out of spite, to take revenge on Republican voters for having voted Trump in power. Elections are thus an S&M-contest: who’s willing to accept the most misery in order to cause that same misery onto the other side. (Of the 1D-spectrum).
Hence, my proposal for a minarchist state, hopefully that will heal the public’s mentality, which now is damaged by exposure to the malice (of the concept) of (the exercise of) dominion. Again, because mankind is psychologically unsuited to exercising power over others (and having it exercised over them): https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/09/06/scientific-evidence-against-the-state-psychology/
Just because the world is littered with states (nations) does not mean they have to be kept. Psychologists call that the sunk cost fallicy, as in: “We have spent so much time with/in government, wouldn’t want that to go to waste. So let’s keep the state, instead of replacing it with something that might work.”