Over de moord op Shakil (15) door twee tieners:
Het is m.i. een gevolg van de beroerde sfeer die wordt ecreëerd dat zelfs pubers elkaar vermoorden. Een gevolg van deze sfeer is ook, dat er weer mensen gaan pleiten voor de doodstraf. Maar de doodstraf is de moord op de samenleving!
Voorkomen is beter dan genezen, daarom: kijk naar de voirbeelden, Zwitserland en de VS:
In,Zwitserland heeft ±100% van de huishoudens vuurwapens, en daar zijn de cijfers voor (zelf-)moord enorm laag. Omdat het Zwitserse leger echt alleen maar ingezet kan worden om Zwitserland te verdedigen, hoeft de regering ook niet het volk gek maken om zich aan te melden om enige continenten ver weg te reizen om mensen te gaan vermoorden.
In de VS heeft ±60% van de huishoudens vuurwapens, en DC heeft ook vuurwapens en een staand leger dat ze de ganse wereld oversturen, om mensen te vermoorden/onderdrukken. Met als gevolg dat het volk daar op het randje van doorslaan wordt gehouden, om ze zover te krijgen om de strafexpedities (ter meerdere eer en glorie van het Vierde Rijk) te steunen.
Daarom zijn er zoveel massamoorden in de VS (en hun dependance Nederland), maar niet in Zwitserland (volgens onderzoeken zijn de Zwitsers erg gelukkig, dat helpt ook)
Of course the Juche-regime of North Korea must disappear, what it does to the people is unacceptable. But a boycot of North Korea is a preposterous idea, for the folowing reasons:
1. It would only reinforce the regimes’s torturing of the people, or helping the dictators achieve their goal faster (their goal being the slow and painful extermination of the North Korean people). Just as the boycot of Iraq did not get people to rise up against the notorious-dictator-with-torture-chambers. It’s hard to rise up when starving and unable to get medical treatments (and affraid of the secret police).
2. Historical perspective: the US’s boycot of Japan resulted in the massacre of Pearl Harbor and the pacific theatre. Japan would likely not have been stimulated/inspired to invade and occupy e.g. Indonesia (which was already being ocupied there and then, by Dutch colonialists, giving the emperor the excuse of “liberating the colonies”). Many women/girls were used as comfort-girls (aka sex-slaves), they were obviously innocent victims.
The fact that in spite of these well known historical objections, there is still talk of boycotting the Population of North Korea., atthe very least, proves a lack of imagination of thise that claim to be suitable leaders is unsettling (and proof of unsuitabilty).
My solution to the Juche regime, would be to make the world so much richer (by using capitalism… whay else?) that North Korea will simply shrivel away. And because that takes a lot of time – prolonging the suffering of millions of innocent citizens, one might consider a CIA assassination plot. Killing the devil you know, replacing with the devil you don’t. Causing who knows what sectarian strife there, and possibly bringing the world closer to nuclear war. With deepest regret, I must say that sacrificing the North Korean victims is probably the best solution to the Kim Il-whichever problem.
De eerlijkheid gebied mij te zeggen dat die krantekop mij niet aanstond. Want: hoe veiliger zo’n missie, hoe groter de kans dat er nog mensen naartoe willen gaan. En dat is slecht voor de wereldvrede (en voor de veiligheid van de burgers hier – en daar!) Kijk maar naar wat de westerse (Amerikaanse) bemoeienis, regime-wissels heeft bereikt: 9/11, #Brussel, #Londen, #München, #Parijs (op alfabetische volgorde).
The “Anti fascistische Aktion” movement is a greater threat than actual fascism is, or ever was. This is easily true, because fascism (Mussolini’s regime) never amounted to much – apart from being rather unpleasant to Italians and Ethiopians. Apart from the war with Ethiopia, Mussolini’s foreign ambitions were: (dare I say it) modest. True, there was the attempt to invade Greece, but that attempt failed. It took the nazis to show the fascists how it was done and to demonstrate the truism that all invasions succeed; national defense is impossible.
So fascism is not a big threat at all, yet #Antifa makes it out to be the worst thing to have happened to mankind. The fact that those howler monkeys invented a threat where there is none, makes them particularly dangerous. They’d impose all sorts of burdens on the world, in order to protect it againstthe hortors of fascism. So they terrorize the people with the full approval of their own conscience; meaning they will not let up, even try to rstchet up.
Driven by their genetic preprogramming to howl at the air around them, they continue to make up excuses to continue to howl, inventing more justification for the #terror they unleash on the world.
Antifa behave exactly like the phenomenon they protest against. But don’t expect them to start protesting against themselves. Because that would be, like, not-hypocritical (and thus,not done).
Een voormalige Kroatische huurmordenaar pleegt in het tribunaal zelfmoord met gif. Sommigen zullen zeggen dat gerechigheid toch is geschied, want het door een beulenpeleton te laten doen, heeft hij zijn eigen straf volktrokken. Alsof het tribunaal iets te maken heeft met gerechtigheid… Processen welke zich richten op straffen van de dader, ipv op (hulp
/compensatie van) het slachtoffer, hebben helemaal niets met gerechtigheid te maken.
Want ze helpen het slachtoffer niet.
The Keynesian fallacy that spending borrowed money is a good way to get out of an economic slump keeps being proposed by Keynesians.
But it makes me wonder: what do we do about the slump caused by the borrowing (and having to pay back the interest& the principal)? It might be better to prevent the slump in the first place, so stop messing with the currency supply. Devaluating it, in order to pay back the borrowed money.
Instead of roads to nowhere https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/lessons-in-economics-from-pop-culture/, Paul Krugman has proposed to veign alarm of an alien invasion, to stimulate spending on weapons of destruction (whether mass, or individual). While it may be true that such spending gets the economy out of a slump for the time being, it sets up the following slump. By requiring that a government steals more money (raises taxes) and spends less.
The latter is a good thing, of course, but only if preceded by less taxation.
What is wrong with “defense” spending? (Apart from it always being offensive spending) The fact that destructive spending always ends up costing money, and not yielding income. Aka it is unproductive. Meaning all the money spent on it, has now disappeared from the wealth ever available on earth.
When those roads / space ships / weapons have been built, nothing can be built with them, only unbuilt (destroyed). A road that goes from somewhere to somewhere else can serve to transport goods or people between the places. A gun can only be used to steal stuff from someone, this someone will either:
steal from someone else in a spread-the-poverty kind of system, or:
retalliate, making everyone worse off.
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.