August 2, 2011
Area 52
So, area 51 (the place where the US government allegedly stores all the technology they got from the aliens, and also store bodies of aliens who perished in the Roswell-accident) is well known, but is there really anything worth connspiring about? Or is that where the US military stores its supplies of Marshmallows, to give away to all the troops when it’s a celebration day? and they make out it as a big hush-up secret to divert attentionfrom area 52?
And where would area 52 be?, May I guess it’s in (or near) the District of Columbia? Aka Washington DC, the place from where the earth is ruled.
Vegans are not content with only killing themselves, here’s why:
Do you know why vegans and vegetarians are so often found in politicalky correct, left-wingbpolitical circles? there are no plantnsources of tryptophan, the amino-acidn eeded to make serotonin, the happiness-hormone. One can only produce serotonin on a diet with animal-products.
So this is a self-perpetuating cycle of misery: you’ll damage your body (e.g. by wrecking your spine), which will make you sad and angry, this will do nothing but strengthen your depression, and you’re surrounded by “people” who are inclined to wallow in their hatred of the world and who thereby encourage your (and their own) self-destructive behaviour.
It’s really telling that Volkert van der Graaf (the loon who shot the famous -and controversial) politician Pim Fortuyn, was a vegan.
November 21, 2008
What’s really the most inconvenient truth? And who does apparently not want to stop cimate change?
The real truth is not inconvenient for us, but for the likes of Al Gore and his goons, namely all politicians who want to believe that the people are to blame for climate change, because of emission of CO2. In other words: the filthy western capitalist industrial pigs they all enjoy picking on, have at the very most a very minor influence on this big, largely autonomous thing called the global climate. The truth is that, if anything CO2-emissions follow temperature changes if anything,, which are caused by nature itself (how else? Large amounts of “scientific” research have failed to produce a human cause, the only thing that did produce a human cause of climate change was politically correct propaganda.) there has been an enormous increase in CO2-levels and this did not noticibly affect the temperature
Now, if climate change actually occurs and really has a human cause (it really is anthropogenic), (so far all evidence points away from mankind as the primal cause) then this whole staring blindly in the direction of CO2 is obviously an ill-fated (in)action and does nothing to stop the global warming. So when our coasts really flood under the risen sea levels, we owe it to mr. Gore and all who worship him and refuse to look for the real cause of climate change.
Thanks Al!
November 7, 2008
The last word on the CO2-issue!
I’ll put this issue to rest once and for all (LISTEN UP, YOU POLITICIANS) by saying the whole “evidence” behind this has been nulled by the person responsible for creating the “scientific” backing behind all the hoohar that industrialization (and it’s CO2 resulting emmissions)are to blame for climate change: Michael Mann.
Have you ever been beaten with a hockey stick? It’s the preferred weapon of mass taxation: it (flawed as it was proven to be) supposedly proved that over the past centuries, there had never been a warmer climate than in the industrial era. In spite of all the evidence of this being wrong, some people (they who hate us, and they are here alright) took this flawed evidence to meaning that the biggest common denominator during the industrial era which is most likely to have had an influence on the environment: CO2-emissions were evil!
But now Michael Mann has reworked his hockey stick graph, with more data, and now it shows that during the middleages. He’d done this iirc, sometime in May 2008 and yet no policy wrt climate change has changed yet.
The middle ages, you know, shortly after they’d they discovered oil in Arabia – don’t be fooled by this fable of crusades in the name of religion, no, the reason they traveleled to Jerusalem was to travel further down south into Arabia, looking for oil which they could happily burn up to heat their castles and power their horses and siege weapons, dieselpowered trebuchets. All the CO2-emissions of the time must have been responsible for the climate being about as warm as that in the previsous century, surely it can’t have any natural causes? (I’m most akin to believing Henrik Svensmark in what causes climate changes).
It now seems that the climate cannot be influenced by humanity, you’d have to be quite arrogant to think that this measly, insignificant species could influence something as gigantic as the planet’s climate.
August 30, 2008
controversial themes
It is already accepted by scientists that we produce energy (heat) by living, we consume it (food) in order to live.
So, it is perfectly natural to consume energy and take advantage of your surroundings in order to gain energy in order to live. Admittedly, the human species have developed the art of consuming energy into a fine art (well, a far advanced one at least, saying it’s fine isn’t exactly true – I’m of the opinion that we have exagerated quite a bit)
]the following article by PBS also states the obvious facts mentioned above (and in earlier posts):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
So in essence, it’s not exactly our luxurious lifestyle that’s to blame (it does help, of course) for environmental issues (we’re making a mess of this planet – or rather they are, and I can’t do much to stop it) and resource scarcity (like land to live on)
Of course, I understand that merely living is a contributing factor, en then living in the luxurious way I do (as a good westerner), with a house of my own, a stocked refrigerator, and luxury items like my guitars and amps (in plural form as well!) only makes it worse. But this blog isn’t about such obvious insights, but rather about the obvious insights which I have to share with people because too many people slavishly do as they are told . “Jump off that cliff, you lemming! It’s best for you, and for us all”. I won’t argue with the latter so long as it’s not me who’s spoken to but I’d like to make it clear that all the hypocrisy has to stop. They’re the ones who behave like lemmings soshould continue to do so by jumping themselves, but no, if people have to do something, it’s never them who have to do it.
(traffic-)lights, inaction!
And because this issue irritates me so much, here’s another dent in the image of oh so green politicians. This gripe is about trafficlights, of course also placed and programmed by the government who takes pride in their good ecological-awareness. More often than not, if you approach a traffic light, it’ll be red and stay that way for a while. while all lights with traffic behind them are red, and the only green light being for the direction with no traffic at all.When the traffic finally comes, their lights turn red as well.
Or sometimes, the lights on all sides stay red for a while, just to keep the pretty image of an empty cross roads in tact.
It would seem that the main cause for this situation would be to increase fuel consumption (no, it’s not an accidentally bad situation, because the government has already been told about this and they refused to change it.), but wait: there’s reason to this madness! With taxes making up 76% of the fuel price, the increased fuel consumption leads to increased tax income. And obviously, this way they’re trying to show that they’re not hypocritical about environmental issues because all the tax income will support all cute little plans the government has to improve the environment.
Well, my guess is that the main cause for action of this government would be to impoverish us as much as they can.
The People
I agree with most politicians that the people (that’s you and me as well) tend to be stupid. Hey, look around you and keep your eyes open this time, and we all keep on voting (on the same parties!) hoping that our votes will change something, don’t we? Naivity is a form of stupidity too. I don’t mean to insult you (I already know that not all people are stupid(I refer to myself <g>), just most of you – I refer to the idiots mentioned in earlier posts)
Now, when a politician speaks about the people, they always refer to this mythical entity which exists only in their ideology. Take for example, the millennium objectives – those are (all noble in themselves) objectives which, according to the radio commercials, we set. Like banning poverty. I didn’t know I set that objective! But when a politician decides that we the people want something (read: they want it) then he’s going to blame us when we didn’t fight hardenough to achive it. Just you wait and see, we’ll get the blame for all those fancy objectives not being met.
The death of Aleksander Solzhenytsin made me think of another great example: Soviet communism. It was the worker’s paradise, and by golly, Stalin had the unfallible vision of how to achieve it. Anyone who dared to protest it, was in for trouble. Enemy of the people! Stalin wasn’t angry that you protested againsthis plans, but that you protested against the obviously only course to well being for the people.
July 8, 2008
Planes, trains and automobiles
trains, planes and automobiles
OK, now something concrete about a current (long-standing) problem in this country: mobility (as in getting to and fro in your country)
Those above us (as in: those in power, not morally or intellectually superior to us) would like for us all to believe cars are evil. It seems their only real gripe with them is that cars allow a certain amount of independence, and travel in a modicum of comfort, whereas they’d prefer to have everyone stuck in crowded public transport, with perfect governmental control over who goes where, and when and how and how fast and for how long, Oh and let’s pervent people from possessing things because we hate it when they do that.
They agree that these are rather sparse reasons to publicly hate cars, to make that your policy, so they came up with these lies:
1. Cars are very bad for the environment (because they emit CO2)
1A) cars produce exhaust fumes and trains don’t.
2. It’s very inefficient to have only one person driving their car, all the other seats are often empty.
1) Let’s not bring up CO2 again, shall we? I though that that myth was sufficiently debunked in earlier posts mine. So let’s consider other reasons they could concoct to support their pitiful hatred of cars:
1A) No, trains have their exhaust fumes blurted out by power stations! Or did you really believe in them being powered by magic? And those politicians most vehemently opposed to cars are also the ones most opposed to nuclear power. I’ve already pointed out the gargantuan flaw in this brain fart, you smeghead!
2) This might be true in many cases, but they’re only weakening the case for public transport. Even during peak times, Often when I see a bus driving, it’s almost completely empty, occupying precious road real-estate and hindering traffic, causing more fuel consumption (on top of its own consumption) hence more exhaust-emissions (on top of…) the same’s often true for trains, especially during evenings, the whole (big and heavy = hard to get moving) consuming lots of electricity to transport only one person, regularly stopping (effectively wasting energy) and starting again (this is the most energy-consuming part of the ride of any vehicle, be it a train or car, or a plane) in a vein attempt to let people in and out. (there’s no-one waiting at the station to get in, and the single person in the train doesn’t yet want out. Surely it would be more energy-efficient to let that single persontravel via a lighter form of transport?
so, even while 1 occupied seat out of 5 in the car isn’t that efficient (better use a motorbike then, only 2 seats, and a lower fuel consumption to boot) but how does that compare to one seat in a train (and a separate driver + ticket inspector who has to risk his life in an almost empty train) with a few hundred empty seats? And all the repeated needless braking and accellerating (both of which cost energy) to boot.
It would be better if people could live close to their workplaces, but asdly there are laws against that in this country! They’re called “bestemmingsplannen”, or “destination plans”, destining a certain region (outside) of a town as a no-live area, only offices or industry are allowed there. So you can’t even live at walking distance from your office (I’ll admit walking distance isn’t what it used to be: the crusaders considered Jerusalem to be situated at walking distance from the Netherlands) so you’ll have to travel quite a distance to get there.
