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.

It’s really telling that Volkert van der Graaf (the loon who shot the famous -and controversial) politician Pim Fortuyn, was a vegan.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Looking at how many people are disgruntled with the course of politics (and have been for quite a while), it both leads to the conclusion that democracy has gone wrong (all those disgruntled people keep voting for the sameparties they have voted forfor years on end. Golly, and nothing changes? Why would that be? Rebel in the only way you can in a parliamentary democracy: invalidate your vote. If you don’t vote, in effect your vote goes to the winner, as you’ve done nothing to influence the (im-) balance of votes. Invalidating your vote wihll still make it count, but it’s a blank; you haven’t assigned it to any party, thereby indicating that none of the parties in the ellection have your confidence. You can vote for fringe parties, which is admittedly tempting, but not necessarily good. If their opinions differ too much from the political mainstream (which keeps flowing in one and the same diection ergardless of election outcome) they’ll only be ignored or even boo’ed at when they’re speaking. or they’ll be shot dead. Anyway, the public’s view of them will be influenced by those in power, giving them a very black and white image, and of course twisting the truths is a popular tool to influence the people.

Back to the original topic: consent or dissent. The consent seems to be that a whole lot of government policy is entirely wrong, and has been for a long time. I refer, for instance, to the immigration policy. I stress again that I’m not a racist! My objection to that policy is due to the ill effects it has on both sides (making the policy itself racist) (immigrants and natives – politicians are a side all to themselves being against everyone in the electorate, but I’ll ignore thatfor now) and because of the desire from “them above” to aggravate and accuse us.You can read about that in my post “Just for fun“.

So, while there is a lot of dissent about topics like these in society,the policy dosen’t change one bit, in fact, they do give the impression that they recognize this dissent and they are fuelled by that to increase their accusations and aggravations.

But where does the manufacturing dissent come into this? Well, regarding their pattern of misbehaviour it seems as if they are manufacturing this dissent. They seem to prey on it somehow. (that’s the only explanation I can give for the amount of dissent they seem to foster continually. I mean – they can’t be so arrogant to ignore it, can they? Or so dim not to notice)

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.

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.

1. Olympics in Beijing
2. Alleged climate change
3. “Kraken” (²)(sorry a Dutch word, I don’t know an English translation for – read the segment about it below to find out what it means)
4. blaming humans for climate change because of industrial CO2-emissions
5. related to the above: nuclear waste transports.
6. right-wing extremism

Answer to my little riddle: a very loud group of people like to shout (not say) that it’s all the fault of other humans (the earlier mentioned western, capitalist pigs are commonly picked).

Oh, the joy of protesting against stuff!

It’s the main cause for joy for whole bands of of “politically engaged” people, I’ll shorten that to “idiots”, just like “arrogant, know-it-all, lying hypocrite is shortened to socialist. (so I do it for convenience + it’s an undeniable fact and why beat around the bush?)

1) Protesting against the olympic games in Beijing really makes lots of sense. Why? Well, I’ll be the first to agree with that the claim the Chinese government is dictatorial,their invasion of Tibet was wrong, and being good dictators they don’t care for the well being / opinions of their subjects. So why would they care about the opinionsof those insignificant, pesky insects in other countries? Obviously they won’t, and everyone who goes protesting and causing riots in San FRancisco, Paris and Londonknows that they won’t achieve anything by it (well, nothing they publicly claimto want to achieve. Obviously they’re only in it for the fun of causing a riot. Sure,some people might actually believe all the propaganda-lies about the cause, but hangers-on are everywhere. (hangers-on, not catchers-on). (heck, those idiots are hangers-on themselves from the alien politicians).

2) Climate change (if it occurs at all) is such a petty stick to hit people with (I need a convenient word for shortening “western, capitalist pigs” – any hints?), because like all environmental-scares in the past, those gullible idiots (wait, I’ve already used that one, let’s just use “pigs” from now on) actually believe all accusations, even though there’s overwhelming evidence against the bogus claim that their CO2-emissions are causing everything. So now we have idiots vs. idiots, I’ve decided to call it idiots vs pigs for clarity. And those pigs let themselves be converted to idiots, by becoming angry with all the climate change caused by other pigs, so now the original idiots are laying the blame on those most gullible pigs, so those gullible pigs are blaming other pigs for making their lifes miserable, and for bringing their precious planet to ruin.

3) Kraken is a dutch verb for which I don’t know an exact English translation: it refers to the act of breaking into houses / office buildings / what have you, and confiscating them as your own home, in other words: it’s lowly theft (often accompanied by causing damage to the building,e.g. by spraying graffitti, doing “remodelling” with the help of your protester’s uniform’s army boots, a hammer, etc.) This is often justified (or attempted to) by claiming an ideological cause: there is a shortage of houses in this country (there has been since WW2) and if a house has been uninhabited for at least a year, Dutch law stipulates that it’s OK to steal it (kraken). (insane, isn’t it? One more proof that the government is against the people) Anyway this is quite a problem in the Netherlands, especially in towns like Amsterdam – obviously it doesn’t happen in smaller villages, regardless of how much more their ideological cause might apply there. The fun is obviously in damaging other people’s possessions (serves them right to posses things) and thereby harming those other people (pigs).

4) CO2 is related to climate change, but only because it’s a common lie that the 2 are connected. (there already is no climate change, so the enormous increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (even though the atomsphere remained largely constant in temperature) does apparently not cause any climate change). How about overpopulation? That’s happening too, obiviously, but it’s a pet subject from the idiots and aliens and we’re not allowed to complain about it or else we’d be right-wing extremists. But every human is a warm-blooded animal (I wonder about those alien politicians – so they look the same on the outside, but how about the inside?) and emits heat of ± 38°C. Surely this affects the environment which warm humans inhabit as well to some degree? Admittedly, this can’t be a large dagree because the climate has over the past few decades remained fairly constant but one would expect some influence.

5) I’ve already touched upon this subject, this is a very clear case of idiots. They’ll take the electric train to near the nuclear power plant to have a nice protest against the transporting of the nuclear waste. Duh! Where do you think the electricity to power your train comes from? My goodness, it would seem that the definition of idiot needs expansion to include short-sighted as well.

6) Why does one never hear about left-wing extremists?? Because while it’s possible to be a right wing extremist but the left-wing is already extends up to the very far left. so you cannot be a left-wing extremist – you can’t be more left-wing than the rest, so no extremists there definition, Also, it would appear (because it is so) that the only way you could be moderately left-wing is to be right-wing (there are no right-wing parties in this wretched country of mine, apart from a few very small factions)
So the left likes to hammer on about how right-wing extremists (we hardly have any of those in this country, Except anyone who is smart enough to disagree with the intolerant part of government (that’s the biggest part of it – at least the loudest) are inferred to be far right-wing , well, you can’t be much further removed from the extreme side of the left, so in strict vocabular terms, they’re indeed extremely to the right.) feed on primitive feelings in the population, Even the wrod populist is used as an insult, even though the moderate right wing is much less guilty of trying to feed primitivvely intolerant thoughts on the populace than the left-wing, with their cheap insults of anyone who dares to voice a dissenting opinion, and thereby tries to endanger their petty pathetic and harmful ideas, whereas the right-wing only tries to go against htose politics (on too few occassions – as I said there isn’t much right-wing in this country.

Example: the left likes to lie about how they want tolerance, and how the right proposes intolerance, while that’s the exact oppossite, in left-wing-world, white people are always to blame, colored immigrants are never to blame, if they misbehave then that’s only because they are in such an unfortunate position, they have fewer chances of getting a good job. and that’s because of the despiccable domination of those filthy whites. Because whites are inherently bad whereas all immigrants are by default good. Who’s the racist now, huh? And who’s the intolerant b’stard now? They keep trying to keep whites and colored people from getting along, by inciting hatred among those defined groups in the population. They are all propaganda-talk about how they want a tolerant society, yet all the time they’re only striving for an intolerant dissociety. Seems like the want a civil war to break out, then watch us all killing eachother. That’ll be fun!

In short: it’s not just “our” politicians (those who govern us, not the ones we want) who prefer hate us, but it’s humanoids themselves who enjoy hating other humans.