This is how a free region (country) will defeat

An invading state.
By free region I of course mean a stateless area, by definition not a country, hence the brackets
And don’t say that the free peoples (by definition more pesperous than the state) (and more motivated) will be unable to fend ff an invading nation.
That statement ignores the development societies have gone through since the era of Roman occupation of all of Europe (even including part of Britain, up to Hadrian’s wall).
Both social and technological development has left the developed world (the west) in a far better state to fend off statist attackers.

For instance, long-distance communication is now much easier, especially among communities which are not on a war-footing with each other, like the differing tribes were in the days of the Caesars, because those were essentially micro-states, with all the (micro-) negatives which that entails. In the centuries since then, societies/countries have learned to value cooperation over strife.
And hopefully even, in the post-state Europen continent (which is the example I’ll be going with in this post) enough people will be so fed up with memories of the (macro-) state that they will succesfully prevent the founding of any new micro-states. (Even if some will be tempted to found them¹).
One way that the invaders may try to invade/occupy a region, is by sending in ground-troops. These troops will likely get beyond decimated, because in the free region, guns are likely quite common (not made illegal by the occupying government), and the population will be armed to the teeth and also and angry at and quite motivated to fight off the invader. So unless the invader wishes to kill everyone on site to just acquire enough living/working space for their nation, then the invader will get slaughtered, quickly losing the support from the home front, which keeps losing its children to a useless and unnecessary war. Wen the nation-state wishes to get its mits on resources in the free region, it is much easier (and cheaper, safer and faster) to just buy them. The people will realize this, and will have to start repopulating the nation (at, say, 50 years of age) because an entire generation will be killed off (and unable to pay taxes), unless the despot is stopped.
Technological advances need not be an advantage against the rebels. Just because none of the rebels have jet fighters, and the state does, does not mean that they don’t stand a chance. In fact, it is most likely to be an advantage to not have fighter-aircraft. Because the countries that do, they’d get locked into,a silly-arms race (during WW2 it was a bonus to have the fastest aircraft, which led to the Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter, that did not do much more than dazzle RAF-pilots, but was ineffective against Spitfires and Hurricanes, because it was much too fast for them. So all they did was burn up Germany’s scarce fuel supply.
Similar will happen when a nation attacks a free region. Its jet fighters will be useless, that’s not counting that some anti-aircraft systems may be developed/bought/rented
by the free people.
Still: imagine sending F-16’s out to hunt for rogue citizens.
That would be woefully difficult because those things are designed to destroy tanks and other fighter jets, not small roving bands of citizens carrying guns.
Not only would those overkill-machines not work, but even if they would they’d still waste resources. If you have any idea of the fuel consumption of a fighter jet, you’d know that it is a desperately preposterous concept. Their use can only be financially justified, when the supplying nation state subsidizes their use in their offensive wars of choice. You know, in the kind of regime-change terrorism, that the leader of the free world specializes in.
For a regime to be changed, there must first be a regime. It is quite difficult to impose a regime where there is none. Far easier to just take over, have the central leadership of a coubtry surrender. By bombing the centre of a city that is about 20 kilometers (± 12.4miles) away from where the central leadership resides (the nazis broke Dutch military resistance bybonbing Rotterdam. Having bombed the heart ot of Rotterdam, the leadership in The Hague surrendered, causing the entirr coubtry to be overrun by nazis, young women (girls) to get raped, resistance fighters to get tortured, innocent civilians to get shot or deported for slave labor, etc.). That is essentially the same as the nazis bombing Marseille and the Norwegian government surrendering.

¹) One mechanism by which this may be stopped is by fear of reputation damage making it harder for aspiring despots to do business with vendors (of food, shelter, etc.)


Waar komt de afkeer van moslims vandaan?

Uit de meest vreemde hoeken hoor je het geluid vandaan komen: zoals in een gesprek over emigratie: “Portugal. Want daar kom je niet op elke straathoek een hoofddoekje tegen.” Portugal is een prachtig land, hoor, met erg vriendelijke mensen, alleen is het daar economisch nooit zo voor de wind gegaan, dat ze zich veel socialisme konden veroorloven. Nu kan natuurlijk geen enkel land zich socialisme veroorloven (inclusief Nederland), maar hier hebben veelerlei Haagse clowns gedaan van wel (doen ze nu nog steeds) alsof dat wel het geval was, over de ruggen van de autochtonen, die ook nog es voor rotte, racistische vis werden uitgemaakt als ze bezwaar maakten tegen de ongegeneerde diefstal. Doordat veel autochtonen zo dom waren om op links te stemmen (vanwege genoemd beleid), en uit electoraal winstbejag verergerden linkserds hun gedrag, wat ertoe heeft geleid dat de sociale kloof permanent en onoverbrugbaar breed is geworden, Is de te grote staat door de aanhoudende agressie de mensen uiteen gaan drijven.
In Portugal heeft de junta nog nooit zoveel allochtonen kunnen lokken met “gratis” (door de autochtonen betaald) lekkers omdat ze domweg het geld niet hadden. Nederland ooit wel een beetje, al is dat geld nu flink opgeraakt. Maar nu zullen de daders zich niet intomen, maar juist het beleid waar zij zich zo mee hebben geïdentificeerd verergeren. Het gaat om de persoonlijke eer, niet om het volk.

Negative interest rates

Interest is whatever amount of money, the ban gives you as a token of gratitude for letting them invest your money for them.
NEGATIVE interest is the fine the junta condems on you, for tecrime of, ont doing what the glorios leader wants you to. Or rather, for existing. (How that differs from the first crime, I do not know.)

Even fiction agrees with me

There is one episode of the BBC radio sitcom Old Harry’s Game, where, due to overcrowding in Hell, Satan goes up top to try and prevent people from committing so many sins and clogging up hell. So he (not gender neutral; I doubt many howler monkeys would mind in the case of te devil; and Andy Hamilton sadly stopped writing the show before howler monkeyism took off – I’m sure he’d have written a brilliant episode about howler monkeys having been sent to hell, but not being allowed in because even hell has standards and besides, the demons are unionized) goes on a campaign to get people to behave more nicely, so he has the TV-show reworked into “perfectly content housewives”, etc.
This locks in with my position that government always sets the example; and now please let ’em set the proper example.
Because the bad example has been set so thoroughly for so long, hell is getting overcrowded.


Je zult zien, wanneer de bureaucratie omtrent de toelating van medicijnen minder wordt, dat de prijzen ook flink zullen dale. Het kost nu ruim een miljoen terreuro om een pil op de markt te krijgen, dat miljoen wordt doorberekend aan de burger, niet aan de minister van VGZ persoonlijk.
En dat terwijl de minister het niet eens nodig vind dat pillen zo’n dure procedure ondergaan. Want zgn magistraal (door de apotheker zelf) bereidde pillen zijn zoveel goedkoper omdat die niet zo’n geld- en tijdverslindende procedure hoeven te doorstaan. dus is de roverheid zelf van mening dat die procedures niet nodig zijn.

The unfairness of central planning

Some people (Members of the Democratic Party) like to complain about Donald Trump’s boorishness, which I personally find refreshingly preferable over Obama’s slick “nice to everyone”-unreliability (he’s nice to your face, then sends your teenagers off to another needless war of aggression, or has the StaSi¹ tap your every electronic communication, in case you say something mean about him)
They’ll claim that “Hillary won the popular vote, not Trump, so he shouldn’t even be president!” I’d like to counter that, with: “Google demonstrably tried to swing the vote to Hillary Clinton, so she did not win fairly. Google used the means of the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME), as identied by Dr. Robert Epstein. Hillary had this unfair advantage, not Donald Trump, who knows how many voters were swung to vote the way Google wanted them to. This is even more sneaky than the Mainstream Media being blatantly pro-Hillary. After all: you expect and are mostly aware of that. But if what you’d consider as mere tools (search engines) are biased as well; that’s like buying a screwdriver for fastening a panel with, and findig it only turns counter-clockwise. (In common parlance: left).
This could only have happened in totalitarian states, where one single person/institution has so much power as in the typical western nation state: aka not in a minarchy or an anarchy. As the book Where Bernie Went Wrong by Hunter Lewis argues: the state is a vehicle for increased inequality; the more power the state has, the more lobbyists and rent-seekers it attracts. So Bernie, who advertizes himself as being for the little guy, is actually willing to sacrifice that little guy to the rent seeking big guy “capitalists” (his definition), by giving the nation state more power (which his “evil capitalists” are drawn to like flies to honey; to manipulate – lobby for – legislation to their benefit). Would anyone want such a naive (or very sneakily evil) fool as president of the militarily most powerful nation in the world (it already spends 9* more than China)? The millennials did.

The podcast with the interview by Tom Woods with Dr Robert Epstein

The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) and Its Possible Impact on the Outcomes of Elections

Free Isn’t Freedom: How Silicon Valley Tricks U

¹) StaSi stands for Stats Sicherheitsdienst, which
literally translates from German to English as National Security Agency (State Security Service).