One strike against religion

My views on what constitutes real justice have fortified my non-religiosity.
Since I do not consider punishment to be a form of justice, I cannot support an institution that condemns souls to an eternity in heaven or hell depending on any transgressions. Transgressions that people engage in because of their genetic predispositions (the way they’re created) and/or their upbringing Both of which are instrumental in moulding people, and deciding how they (re-)act in the future. So, the only form of justice can be: to make the victim whole.
Which is not a feature of any religion I know of.



De eerste beeldenstorm was gedreven door religieuze motieven, deze 21e eeuwse ook. Alleen nu niet Christelijk oid, maar de religie van het zalige links. Als zij zo boos zijn over de slavernij, erken dan ook eindelijk eens het eigen verleden: in de goelagarchipel waren onschuldige Sovjet-burgers onder verschrikkelijke omstandigheden tot slavenarbeid gedwongen. Alsof het leven onder het Sovjetregime niet erg genoeg was, deed de grootste kameraad (Stalin) er nog een schepje bovenop.
Maar nee: links zal nooit de hand in eigen boezem steken, het is genetisch voorgeprogrammeerd om anderen de schuld te geven. Dat laatste is heiligschennis, en daarop staat (zo weten we sinds Fortuyn) in Nederland de doodstraf.

If the Paris accord ain’t binding

then why all the fuss about Trump withdrawing from it?
Ps the why in the question is superfluous: the Paris climate accord truly, genuinely isn’t binding.
Revealing an inconvenient truth about the why of this whole climate business: it isn’t about doing the right thing for the greater good, sacrificing the citizens’ chances for the future of the planet. No: it’s about boasting about how good they are, how much effort they put in to protect the precious, darling climate. And hoping that this will rub off on converting people into believers. Again, not because they care about the object of belief, which they don’t do. They just want the people to belief, what with the ongoing loss of Christian belief in the west. This also helps explain the push to lure muslims. They come pre-packaged with a handle on their day-to-day behaviour. But just in case the muslim-solution to crowd control misfires, there’s the religion of Gorism to keep us busy.
Back on topic: why the not-binding #Paris-agreement proves the #IPCC-hypothesis is bunk: surely, if they actually cared about the climate, they would put aside their petty differences and reach an agreement. They have proven to rank the importance of climate policy higher than the people’s interests (by not believng in the hypothesis and still makig the people suffer from their climate policies), so don’t give me any excuses about the governments not wishing to adopt certain impopular measures. Because as governments have extensively indicated, they exist solely to impose impopular measures.
So, it is now clear that they don’t believe a word of it. Then; stop it, already!

This is all political theater, just like the terrorist campmaigns are political theater


Honor thy father and mother

Religions that call to instruct children to honor their father and mother, are aweful guides to parenting. This is better:

“Parents, act such, that you deserve to be honored/praised (by your children and others -setting the right example for your children).”

This puts a precondition on the behaviour of the party in power in the parent-child relationship. It occurs to me, that such a concept is much more in keeping with Christ’s message of humility and pacifity.

A bit wordy, but please do polish to your heart’s content)



Ik gun eenieder het recht om eender welk geloof aan te hangen dat ze willen, zo lang ik ook vrij ben om dat te doen, inclusief het recht om een geloof niet aan te hangen. Wanneer de overheid mij gaat verplichten om de staatsreligie van het Gorisme aan te hangen, is dat een schending van de grondwet.
Een hypothese die zo definitief ontkracht is als “klimaatverandering door CO2” [o.a. Ross McKitrick, Syun Ichi Akasofu], en je kiest ervoor om er toch in te geloven, dan is het een religie. Mijn excuses aan alle Christenen, Moslims, Boedhisten, enz. het was niet mijn bedoeling om jullie te beledigen!
Daarom heb ik ontheffing van zo’n beetje elke belasting die er nu is: omdat bijkans het volledige belastingstelsel dankzij jullie religieuze ijver door jullie gerechtvaardigd is op deze religieuze gronden, wordt mijn bestaan erg goedkoop! Dank!
Ps een religie welke wel een duivel (Gore) kent, maar geen enkele engel, is een rare; kan alkeen maar een uitvinding van een roverheid zijn. (Nederlands voor failed state)


Novel-idea: civil war

Now that government has gone off the rails, it’s anyone’s guess what’s going to happen. Statists are entirely unreasonable, unpredictable wildcards, apparently sick (in the biological sense), making them sick in the head.
Now, imagine that someone exposes (with irrefutable evidence) the government as a harmful institution. (Eg the fourth reich, or their efforts to increase the CO2-concentration which they claim is a bad thing) when someone succesfully manages to sue the government for treason or murder; this grievous insult of the glorious state will enrage statists that will go berserk and flip, going on a rampage.


Climate-policy is unconstitutional

When the evidence against something is so overwhelmingly compelling as that against the government’s #Climate-hysteria, the choice to believe in it (without regard to the conclusions of science – Both Ross McKitrick and Syan Ichi Akasofu have concluded that CO2-concentration has risen sharply since Kyoto came into effect (1990), while Syan Ichi has added that the observation that the global temperature has remained the same), becomes a religious one (I don’t mean to offend anyone who believes in a creator-god, a sky-god or whatever). Of course I’m all for freedom of religion, but also for seperation of church and state (as the constitution ought to ensure).
So, this forcing of people to join them in prayer at the altar of Gore, is utterly illegal.

They all squeal that CO2 is such a threat, yet they can’t be bothered to make any effort to allow people to reduce emmissions, so that would justify sending them to Scheveningen, the international criminal court, in order for them to stand trial for this deliberate attempt at destroying the planet.

Then again: upon entering office, the US president’l-elect has to swear to defend the constitution, “just a piece of paper”, according to GWB, the same guy who gave the world the Patriot Act which eroded some of the protections in the Bill of Rights. So what use is an oath to protect a constitution if the guy who swore to protect it, personally violates it? They’re just sounds, right, Georgie?