Op-Ed: Should Europe have nuclear weapons? The case for abolishing politics

Donald Trump has rattled NATO by casting doubt on his commitment to the alliance – Copyright AFP Julia Nikhinson

I’ve always wanted to fit this into an article: There are 8 billion people on this planet who would like a chance sometime to get on with their lives. This mystic vision would be greatly assisted by shutting down the never-ending series of political catastrophes.

What causes human misery? The total failure to respond rationally to any situation. Who’s supposed to get it right? Politicians. Have they got anything right in the last 40 years?

No further witnesses.

There are also the compulsory wars, crime, profiteering, and insane cultural obscenities to be considered. Clearly the best people to manage these issues must be living in someone’s pocket.

A case in point for this elegant audit of the obvious is the debate whether Europe should have nuclear weapons. France and the UK have some, but Europe as a whole doesn’t. Germany has now raised the issue following comments from that roguish and also presumably compulsory sage Donald Trump.

Thanks to politics, a new trigger in humanity’s instant demise may well be added to the mix. It took one rant for America’s Least Interesting to start this debate. Only in a political system where you have to take sides would this utter drivel be taken seriously.

You could argue by scratching on your cave wall that any useless prehistoric idiot could have made the same statements. True. Said idiot, however, wouldn’t get the publicity that a political hernia like Trump gets.

Politics is the science of amplifying stupidity. However idiotic, when it becomes political it has to be taken seriously. Europe is quite rightly wondering what the funicular it’s supposed to do if facing Russia alone. The subject didn’t even exist previously.

…But, you declaim, hopefully for proper remuneration:

“Doth not the vainglorious vaunted vacuum of far too many noises have a right to speak? Shall we not be blessed with his fabled wisdom?”

Uh… No. there is no statutory or other legal obligation to listen to drivel.

Even Americans, who are sometimes slightly verbose, are running out of names for Trump. Interestingly, it was the NATO commentary that prompted this sudden descent into honesty. The NYT link is quite eloquent, and as usual with Americans who can read or write, much too polite.

Back to the political issue:

How many morons do we actually need to destroy the world?

Why are we paying actual money to listen to this idiocy?

Is the political system’s total and utter failure to address any of the world’s actual issues indicative of some sort of systemic problem?

How many lapdogs does it take to change a light globe? None. Lapdogs don’t change light globes or anything else if they can help it.

I have a much better gooder sorta snufflier plan.

Now that we’ve found an all-round reliable moron, we simply put it in a terrarium and use it for entertainment. Ditch the rest of them, and rake in money on the subscriptions to the only show in town.

We’d save billions and maybe even see out the decade without the wars.