As the 2 Stans have demonstrated: following a leader is always a bad idea. But that is particularly true, when the leader chooses to single out one particular genus (ethnic group) for persecution to further his political success, look again at South Africa: the Apartheid doctrine was aimed at harming the interests of blacks, not whites. But whites that refused to play along, would get persecuted by the regime.
This makes me wonder: was the Apartheid-system instated in order to benefit the white population in general (as in not just the political elite)? If so, when the system turned against the white population, it should have been abolished. That did not happen because it was a political construct, thus never intended to serve any people at all.

So history repeats itself, now with muslims/Arabs (/Perzians) being the persecuted genus, politicians seeking political gain by claiming to wish to protect the white citizenry from primitive muslims.

Flat-out outlawing something doesn’t work

As proven by the size of the #prison population: prisons are filled with people that broke laws (bar the sparse few innocents that have been wrongly convicted), so laws don’t magically make everything all right and stop people from braking them.

If laws worked, whenever a #law (a #ban) was passed, the amount of prison cells could be reduced. Instead the number has to increase, to house the extra people braking the law.

So why bother with the childishly simple notion of “we’ll force people to behave the way we want them to and it’ll be all right”, why not work with the people, lead by example, etc?

Sounds too wishy-washy? Perhaps, but since the age-old approach of forcing people apparently has never worked anywhere on earth, if one is so presumptouous as to take the job of politician, one had better come up with a approach that might work.

Government of the people, by & against the people

Thinking of #apartheid got me thinking: the black South African suffered, but the white South African did too, especially when they spoke out against the government’s Apartheid-regime. That regime earned South African people sanctions which isolated South Africa socially and economically, which armed the interests of the people, which were against the government’s apartheid regime, something which they were powerless to do anything against, because it was the fucking government that did it. Sanctions against the people only help the government harm the interests of the people.

Different example: Sanctions against the Iraqi people over Saddam’s misbehavior. The guy was a fucking dictator! What was GWB thinking? “Oh, if we cause avoidable suffering among the people, Saddam might get a change of heart.” Yeah, cause his benevolence really shone in his torture prisons and his repeated executions of cabinet ministers. If he shot his relatives through the head in cabinet meetings, imagine how many qualms he experienced in governing several millions of people he did not know, that were only a statistic.

By the way: #Saddam was one of the many reasons for #9/11. Because Saddam received monetary and operational support from the western governments, the suffering people there developed feelings toward the puppet masters in the west. The #MiddleEast was an important play ground for the #ColdWar players in DC and Moscow. After the collapse of the #USSR, there was really only one country left to take revenge against; the USA, not the USSR (true, they could have attacked mother Russia, but they chose America. At least they chose to attack the white house & Pentagon, 2 valid military targets: on top of the WTC-towers which were civillian, but they were important cogs in funding the war machine that caused such suffering among Middle-Eastern people. So it was not the American people that were under attack, but the regime, that frequently sent the people’s children to die (whether in an electric chair for a crime, or on the battle field, for the greater glory of the regime, in a needless & unprovoked war, like those in Vietnam, both cases of Iraq, Bay of Pigs (Cuba) – which only served to oust Castro – objectively a good thing, but not if they wanted to install a pro-Amerucan puppet like General Fulgencio Batista, which would lead to a new communist dictator taking the place of Batista Jr., with who knows what violence resulting from that)…
So here, the American people suffered the consequences of the DC regime’s actions (which they had 0 influence on, so the lie of a “demoratic government” must be annulled now. Governments can by definition not be democratic. Ststelessness is democratic, having a bunch of infantile nonos tell people what to do and what not, is the opposite of democratic).
Somehow it’s always the people that suffer from the blowback from a government’s misdeeds. Not also how the atomic bombs were not dropped on the cause of theJapanrmese government’s aggreelssve behaviour (the Japanese government in Tokyo, itself), but on the Japanese people that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In this case, by dear providence, the Japanese government surrendered, possiby not out of concern for the people in the two towns, or

On Slavery (exploitation / exclusion)

Wheneer,someone equates #Capitalism with #slavery, mention #apartheid. Slavery is  a way for the government to torture people, just like apartheid. But there’s no way you can say apartheid was a system for economic exploitation. It was economic exclusion, not exploitation, exploitation may yield money (though slavery turns out to not be economically viable, maybe with a government to wield its magical authority to coerce citizens into catching runaway slaves).

Excluding entire masses from economic life is entirely harmful to capitalists. So, only an ideologue, like a #politician will do that.

Some #firearm stats (from Seth Lasher)

The other day, on one of the Facebook-fora I frequent, a kind gentleman named Seth Lasher posted an interesting message. I found it so valuable, that I asked permission to rrepest it on my blog, so here goes:
So let me get this straight. They criticize Wayne as head of the NRA quoting “good guy with gun bad guy with gun” as attempt to make the point that he benefits from firearm ownership and is bias.. THEN they use nothing but statistics from anti firearm groups and pass them as actual statistics and facts when really the only FACT here is there “studies” are absolute bias and designed to criminalize firearm ownership.. I love liberals how stupid do they think people are and if you want real statistics I’ll write them right here!

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides……Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

Remember, when it comes to “gun control,” the important word is “control,” not “gun.”
– [ ]

Betreffende Frankrijk en Groot Brittannië

Zojuist (3 augustus 2017) deze brief gestuurd naar cie.im@tweedekamer.nl:

Geachte commissie,

Recent hebben de Britse en Franse overheden iets heel verontrustends aangekondigd, nl. dat ze in 2040 de verkoop van “fossiele” brandstoffen willen verbieden. Dit is om meerdere redenen een dom idee:
1) Het is slecht voor het milieu,
2) En het is slecht voor de economie.
Betr. (1): de plotse, forse en kortdurende stijging van de productie van EV’s, moet gepaard gaan met een abrupte (forse en kortdurende) stijging van de productie van nieuwe auto’s en dus ook van de winning / productie van alle grondstoffen en onderdelen. Maar hoe kan men weten wanneer er genoeg grondstoffen gewonnen zijn zodat men kan stoppen, voordat de vraag weer instort? Centrale planning werkt tenslotte niet, zoals u allen maar al te goed weet.

Heden kunnen oudere auto’s nog geleidelijk verdwijnen uit het dagelijks gebruik, bv voor demontage en hergebruik van onderdelen, voor auto’s die nog wel rondrijden. Uiteindelijk, na langere tijd (nuttig leven) verdwijnen ze 1 voor 1 op de schroothoop. Zoals het er nu voor staat, verdwijnen er in een keer miljoenen (nog prima bruikbare) auto’s op de schroothopen, wat een enorme energieverspilling inhoudt. Anti-duurzaam, dus.

Betreffende (2): EV’s zijn nu al onbetaalbaar voor de gewone sterveling, inclusief alle subsidie. Wanneer EV’s verplicht zijn moet iedereen dus zijn eigen subsidie betalen om ‘m te kunnen kopen; of ze moeten stoppen met werken / op familiebezoek gaan / gaan winkelen enz. En dus zal auto-rijden weer voorbehouden blijven aan de (partij-) elite.
De prijzen voor oud- (en dus ook nieuw-) ijzer zullen een grote prijs-schok vertonen, wat een economische mini-crisis zal veroorzaken in die sector: hoppa, toch mooi weer x-tal mensen werkloos!
En alleen al de groei van de schroothopen (in de plaats van demontage-bedrijven) zal een grote (onnodige) belasting van het milieu vormen.

Met vriendelijke groet,


Hormonal/mental issues

As one person commented about Donald #Trump’s bombing policy, in the #FaceBook-group The New #Libertarian:

I read he has been killing more civilians per month than #Obama.

To top it off he bans the refugees from countries he is still bombing.

My reply was the following:

now that is a sign of either:

Mental retardedness/shortsightedness

Evil: (bombing people out of their homes and disallowing them to escape – he’s the embodiment of the Soviet practice of making citizens’ lives hell, then stringing barbed wire with gunmen in towers along it to kill people that try to escape – the definition of sadism)

Think of the damage it does to the minds of people that live there: continuous fear of death, 24/7. Unescapable #fear, which depletes the hormonal glands, effectively breeding a generation of fearless counter terrorists.

#bellum ad infinitum!