Mass Transit is a Failure, a Prediction

The article the title of this article refers to (Mass Transit Is a Colossal Government Failure) is published on the website of the Foundation for Economic Education. The report spoken of in the article takes its conlusions from data collected in the United States. So of course the ultimate conclusion of mass transit being a failure based on data from the United States can only be valid in the United States. BUT:

since this is Agenda 21/2030, Vision 2015 we’re confronted with, it means, that besides from country-specific differences, the system is basically the same. Mass transit is pushed by government via funding what in the mind of those who write the agenda is preferable (deemed sustainable as opposed) to all other possible solutions or personal preferences. That is why local governments rather take parking spaces away, senselessly in the eyes of the public, because since the agenda says that cars are unsustainable, local governments have to make car ownership, traffic and finding of parking possibilities more difficult than using a bike and mass transit solutions. Think also of the recent diesel driving bans. That approach is devious, especially when studies, which are published after the agenda-driven policies are implemented, report the success of the policies, although in reality the demand by the people would be far lower.

And that is really the crux of the case, why I predict that mass transit is already a failure here in Germany too. In order to connect everybody via mass transit, they have to install more stopping points and deploy more busses, trains, subway trains, etc. They have to supply more rental bikes. More car sharing. For the latter two, Smartphone technology is really helpful, and it looks like more people actually do prefer to take an Uber cab, which doesn’t invalidate my point, since Uber services are offered on a free market, free from tax-payer funding, and relatively free from government-distorted prices. In case of mass transit solutions though prices are relatively far from market reality, and everybody who uses mass transit knows that prices rise frequently, like every year, all the while the service quality doesn’t rise. How the hell do those in charge of mass transit plan to make mass transit more and more often available without raising prices? And how do they plan to also replace fossil fuel driven busses with electric busses or even hydrogen busses without raising the prices, when a) replacement costs are two or three times higher than before and b) there is no electric and/or hydrogen infrastructure at all?

Right, they will have to raise taxes. What will happen when they keep on raising taxes? The trend of impoverishing the people will be reinforced. It is the same story as with the trend of impoverishing the people via taxes on electricity for the sake of implementing “renewables.” Apparently people in the UK are struck the hardest with fuel poverty in the EU. Again, since this is Agenda 21/2030, Vision 2050, policies and their effects are all basically the same, worldwide. You should also take a look at green policies in California, to get a closer look at what it means to be a human in a world where environment protection and measures against climate change are more important than protecting the rights of the individual human being.

So there’s no hope? Well, another effect of those ill-fated green policies is the rise of the so-called populistic parties, in Germany the AfD. The Alternative für Deutschland opposes green politics and calls the Greens out on their environmental and climate change scam, which makes a lot of people very rich and much more people very poor. And now you know, why AfD politicians and their supporters are called “Nazis” in public; it’s because a lot of money is transfered from the pockets of the working class into the pockets of climate activists, climate NGOs, climate politicians.

Mass transit might very probably soon be a complete failure, since redistribution of wealth has never worked out. In the end the system always fails, hopefully this time the people are alert enough to resist soon enough, so that free people on free markets will be able again to build this nation, every nation, worldwide.

Opinion: The Borderless Society is a Failure

By Marvin Falz

People who know me, know I like Star Trek. Very much. The old one from the 60s that is. Even in the world of the United Federation of Planets, they have planets, different from each other racially, culturally, psychologically, with military to at least defend themselves at their borders. Okay, we know Kirk, he would often completely dismiss the Prime Directive of non-interference, in cases where he was confronted with societies, which he perceived as stagnant (“The Apple”), or in “The Return of the Archons,” where a computer was implemented – kind of like in “The Apple” – to control society for its own good, providing for the populace, defending them against everyone from the outside, since their social/semi-natural balance is very delicate, its machine-like patterns and routines very easily disrupted. In this regards Kirk pretty much represents messianic America, left ideals, which are to be imposed on society, even if there is objectively no need for it, and the people are against the intrusion of strangers, who know nothing about the culture.

Now, I don’t want to bore you with my knowledge of Star Trek. It’s a highly idealistic TV show, the format of this particular show didn’t allow to elaborate on all facets of societies the Star Trekkers encountered and meddled with, but which is at least truthful enough to also show us the limits of their own ideals. One last glance into Star Trek lore: Memory Alpha, the Memory planet, a database planet, where all knowledge from all Federation member planets was stored, did not have any protection, since protection was “considered inappropriate to its totally academic purpose.” Guess what, “The Lights of Zetar” easily destroyed the whole academic installation on Memory Alpha.

By now, you must already know what I am getting at. With all the news lately, such as ‘banning child marriage in Germany is unconstitutional’ and the ongoing streak of (group) rape by young men from Islamic countries, one wonders if we witness the destruction of our own Memory Alpha. Leftists consider borders inappropriate to their seemingly peaceful purpose. Of course, No-Go-Areas and Sharia-Law are not considered inappropriate, since that is diversity. So now there is a price to pay every day, in all our institutions, life seems to have become a daily war for many of us. And kind of like the different planets in the Federation, the formation of new borders inside of the old national territories, plus the spread of the idea and the efforts to secede in the EU, really show that the high ideals of the Left including diversity and a world without borders, which seems to include all social and moral boundaries, might be unreachable.

Does that take away from my enjoyment of Star Trek? No. I still like the ideals, but I am aware that ideals and reality only come together in a small space of conformity. Which is why the propagation of the New World Religion only knows love without defining what love is, and thus remains on a surface level of meaning and constituting communal cohesion. On the other hand, maybe that is the way to go, though the commitment of so many to religion, world view and attitude they brought with them, tells another story.

Conclusion: The messianic ideology of the Left is a pipe dream, btw. this goes also for all other global movements (mostly religious) with the aim to conform everyone in their system. This already costs us dearly. But – the ideology might work well inside a closed society with strong borders, a deep-seated identity, and an insurmountable feeling of commitment to their own exclusive group. (Kind of like Judaism handles self- and group-identity and the wish of non-Jews to become part of Israel. Conversion is done cautiously, a potential convert has to intensely learn and do Jewishness in a process spanning many years.) Of course they can cultivate connections to other groups. There is nothing inherently bad about a United Federation of Planets, in our reality the United Nations of Earth, connecting diverse nations in a forum in hopes of achieving some sort of unity and worldpeace in the long run. But at this point in time, all the Left does in its haste, has the potential to lead to civil war, even more separation. The Left should really stop doing politics.

Take the Climate Challenge (

Climate alarmism, easily debunked by simple statistics. The weather was more extreme in the past, therefore claims of global warming/climate change are either wrong, because the facts are ignored, or they’re blatant lies.

Science Matters

Last night PBS aired the most impressive presentation yet of “Official” climate doctrine. I don’t say “science” because it mounts a powerful advocacy for a particular viewpoint and entertains no alternative perspectives. The broadcast is extremely well crafted with great imagery, crisp sound bite dialogue and sincere acting.

With all the invested effort, talent and expense, it is probably the strongest yet Blue Team argument for climate alarm and against fossil fuel consumption. As such we can expect that large audiences of impressionable people of all ages will be exposed to it. It behooves anyone who stands on skeptical ground, who wants to hold that position, to study what is asserted and decide what points are acceptable and what claims are disputed.

The telecast will be repeatedly aired this month on NOVA on US PBS stations. The website apparently blocks viewing in foreign countries, but the transcript is available and…

View original post 3,119 more words

Al Gore speaks the truth … sort of

All of it is felt most keenly by the world’s most disadvantaged people, […]” said Al Gore during his live broadcast on Tuesday, 12.4.18. Of course, he meant the most disadvantaged people of the world feel climate change  most keenly, but he didn’t say why: laws on climate change which set up a system of prohibitions to “protect” the environment and keep manmade CO2-levels low, which make it harder for the most disadvantaged people to earn a living without having to resort to any support of the welfare state, while at the same time enabling a system of financial support of “sustainability” via taxes like the Renewable Energy Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG) in Germany. Or the UK Climate Change Act, its costs rising steadily -according to official figures presented by the Global Warming Policy Foundation – “from £327 per household per year in 2014, to £875 in 2030.”

If you take a look at different states worldwide which have adopted laws on climate change, you will notice that in all these states energy costs are constantly rising. It’s a vicious circle: rising energy costs increase fuel poverty, more and more people have no other option but to use bicycles and public transportation, the costs of expanding and maintaining public transportation also being on the rise, until even public transportation is too costly for the most disadvantaged people. You can see where this is going.

This is why “all of it is felt most keenly by the world’s most disadvantaged people.” This is why decarbonisation and degrowth of the economies of the world isn’t the solution, it is the problem. This is also what Al Gore and people of his ilk won’t tell you on purpose.