War (politics) at the cost of people’s lives

At the latter part of WW2, the Polish resistance made a great effort to drive away the nazis, hoping to avoid being occupied and ruled by Stalin’s already notorious regime.
Stalin wanted to get his hands on Poland, and so refused to supply the resistance with the weapons it needed, merrily letting them get slaughtered/arrested by the dozens. Only to further his own petty pleasures of being the absolute ruler of a few million more people.

Truman knew that Japan had been beaten, admittedly, Japan itself did not know it yet, but with the Soviets in the north, blocking access over,land, and the American navy blocking off access at all other borders (east, south and west are coastal borders), the Japanese government would not be able to acquire supplies/resources for the war machinery. So, really, all it would have taken for Japan to admit defeat and surrender, was a bit of patience.
Militarily, there was absolutely zero need for the murder of all those citizens with the atomic bombs that Truman did, apart from obviously striking fear in the hearts of every other population in the world, that the new boss in town possessed such very mighty weapons and wasn’t reluctant to use them on innocent people. Showing who was in charge.

And more recently, Bush2 (Dubbya) had zero reason to incade Iraq, because there were zero links to Osama Bin Laden. The trumped up excuses were a sham too: WMDs? (The only ones that were there dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and had been launched at Iran with the help of American targeting data).
But it had been long ago decided by the neo conservatives that a regime change would have to take place (be performed) in Iraq.

And the excuse of terrorism, to justify enslaving the population ever more, is also opportunism. As Macchiavelli wrote re any need a prince might have for a castle: “the only castle the prince needs, is not being hated”. To put that in my own words: the best defense against counterterrorism, is not committing terrorism.


How many Muslims are there in the world? | Reference.com


So… at the end of 2012, 23% of the entire world population (1.6 billion people) was a muslim, eh? (A number of them have been killed since then).
Now imagine, that the logic of Bush2 (GWB) made any kind of sense¹, and muslims were genetically predisposed to kill westerners. Surely, if that were so, Europe and the Americas would be entirely depopulated by now.
I maintain that being a muslim is a much more dangerous passtime than being a non-muslim.

BTW I still maintain that christians are much more dangerous than muslims.
Of course, not all christians are like that, only the ones in political power (in DC, mostly), commonly known as neo-conservatives.

¹) remember “They hate us for our freedoms.”?

The modern music scene and the basic income guarantee

Modern music is eminently forgettable (if you’re lucky; if not, it’ll keep buzzing round in your head driving you crazy). Compare this to the oldies: the artists had no food, unless they made something worthwhile to enough people (excluding the record company’s short-sighted accountant). To put it in the words of the world famous David Gilmour: “Bread-line. Bread-line and less.” The concept is driven home very beautifully by Clarence Carter’s Patches: https://youtu.be/IvfsfS6NVUc
Some great music that came forth from personal tragedies:
The death of Paolo Conte’s friend Max: https://youtu.be/ousODYCOUBU
The singer Frank Boeijen finding out that a girl he used to go to s hool with, has become a prostitute: https://youtu.be/tzOu6UI6Q_Q
The specter of nuclear annihilation has produced some popular songs, too: https://youtu.be/mP9kMeJlwIc and: https://youtu.be/OorZcOzNcgE
Of course I wish everybody could live a life without tragedies, yet sometimes the tragedies happen, and the people affected by them produce something worth remembering. A bit a la Toynbee’s Challenge/Response https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/arnold-toynbees-challengeresponse/, but on the individual level.
The basic income will remove incentives, smoothen everything out so there will never be exceptional people, arising from exceptional circumstances, meaning that the #BasicIncome is a crime against the human condition.

Social contract

The “social contract” is supposed to say something to the extent of: “by living in this country, you agree to abide by government’s requirements.
Which could be considered as a justification for the iron curtain: because you were living in the USSR, you agreed to having us make your live as hard as humanly possible. Oh, and we don’t want to let you leave, because your persons are belong to us. !?!?!??

Apart from the (valid) argument “I didn’t sign that!”, how about: “contracts are between 2 or more parties” and clearly government (the failed state) is not holding up its part of the deal, by harming the interests of the people (not only Venezuela, DPRK etc. Do so but certainly every NATO-country which is provoking islamic counterterrorism, and also making war with Russia more likely by the day, by opening new NATO-bases, or holding military exercises, ever closer to the Russian border all the time.
That is NOT representative of the interests of the people!

Then there’s the economic malfeasance of toying with the currency, and so having caused depression after depression.

The following is inspred by http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/

See the bottom video (“You can always leave”)
Why should I leave? I’m not the one creating the bad situation, so why should the burden of departure fall upon me? (If I would leave – where to? Then I would leave behind millions of other victims for politicians, so leaving would be rather selfish. More pragmatically considered: if the entire population just up and left, there would be no country left for politicians to rule.
And besides, if I move into a different society, I implicitly sign its social contract, choosing to feel that the laws and customs are at the top of my list of most desirable ones (least undesirable ones). This leads to the following:

The only way a social contract might be used, is in this weak form:

“When people live among eachother, certain modes of behavior are more conducive to happy cohabitation.”

So people not killing, or stealing from, others, etc. would fall under the social contract. Note that the tit for that-mechanism (or fear there of) will do just fine for encouraging respect of the social contract: there’s no need for a big, extorting, bully, that breaks social contract rules itself (by stealing taxes from the people, by killing some of them – in war, or in a penal system)

It’s not the government I agree to by living there: by (attempting to) rule over us, they agree to abide to our rules. Because the state of nature is independence and so government is an unnatural construct on top of the natural state of being, government is only tolerated so long as they behave acceptably well, so in effect, the people can behave toward government any way it chooses to. Government is on the bottom rung of the social hierarchy (if even that high up, as to be on a rung at all).
Also, it’s society’s rules I agree to live in accordance with (regarding murder etc.), and since government is hostile to society, and in no way representative of society, I owe no allegiance at all to government.

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)

Nou, “slechts” 38% kans: wees blij, Europa!


De afkeer van het Europese gedrocht grijpt om zich heen: toch blijven de Eurofielen weigeren te veranderen.
Om met Darwin te spreken: een soort die zich niet aanpast aan veranderde onstandigheden, sterft uit.
Om Toynbee te parafraseren: een politiek instituut dat geen antwoord heeft op veranderde uitdagingen/eisen & wensen van het volk, verdient het om opgeheven te worden. (Challenge Response http://www.zenker.se/Books/toynbee.shtml).

Nu Frankrijk zich (eindelijk) ook heeft afgekeerd van de politieke elite, is de kans reëel (38%) dat Marine LePen de presidentsverkiezing wint, en zij is tegen de EU: als zij wint, verschijnt er een concurrerende munt (de Franse Franc) naast die rotmunt (de terreuro). Dat is een goed begin: ik had liever dat de Fransen weer met goud zouden betalen: fysiek (munten) ofwel digitaal (goud in een bankkluis, bepaalde hoeveelheden op jouw naam, die tenaamstelling is dan wisselbaar: hé, zoiets bestaat al met http://www. goldmoney.com) Vive le population! Adieu multination!