Now it seems it hard to not be US-citizen any more. It’s facism all the way down. Opression, bureaucracy.
Now it seems it hard to not be US-citizen any more. It’s facism all the way down. Opression, bureaucracy.
so is it:
Imagine, exactly the FED chief that started the whole stuff….
Taken sarcastic it would be great but I’m afraid they do really mean that serious. And that is ridicilous (IMHO – YMMV of course)
That’s the fact:
Once a deposit is made at the bank, it’s no longer your property. It’s the bank’s.
What you own instead is a promise from the bank to repay. It’s an unsecured liability. That’s a very different thing from owning physical cash stuffed under your mattress. Yet, 99.9% of people conflate the two.
Cash deposited into the bank technically makes you a creditor of the bank. You’re liable to get burned should the bank make a bad bet and get into trouble. The risk is not insignificant. Most banks gamble with their customer deposits on risky investment fads like mortgage-backed securities.
The lie about to whom the deposits belong. It’s an credit and so you never do savings in a banking account you always do investing.
There was a proposal that one has to stop Monsanto. I wrote it may be problematic. I should elaborate on that here we go:
Yes I can. At first we have to get the bases straight. I assume the population will be much higher then today. And there is one thing which you can also count on. The more developed a country the less children. So poverty and population are negative correlated. The more wealthy a society is. the less children it has.
If you don’t agree, that’ll be fine with me. Just check the numbers. Anyway the point is there will be much more men then today. It’s not to be expected that we find new continents like e.g. America in the foreseeable future. So the land is limited. Still there are millions of square kilometers which are not settled.
But they will get settled because, well men need some space. The simple rule is the easier a land can be cultivated the earlier it will get settled. So there are areas on this earth which are well suited for settlement, and there are those which are hardly suitable for settlement. But men has the means to make even deserts flourish. It may be not a good idea agreed, but examples are abundant. See California e.g. Now what is the biggest problem for growing plants. In short it’s getting enough sun and water.
But now see the Sahara, there’s more then enough sun but hardly water. So what can we do about that ? Well Sahara goes directly to the Atlantic or other oceans. The problem with that? Salty water. What can one do about that? Well you can get water out of salt water, that costs a lot of capital and a lot of energy. So the solution for that is as cheap as possible energy. Is there a practical limit on energy on earth? No it is not, as Einstein has pointed out E = m * c², so any material is just energy, in the end we can not run out of energy
What other solution may we have for salty waters? No assume we would have had plants which can be irrigated with salty water. Does such things exist. Indeed such plants do exist (see the salty greens near the north sea), now if we could make plants like wheat takes salty water resistant, we could cultivate deserts.
Monsanto tries to get get crossings such as that. So maybe salty resistant plants may make the difference for survival or not. You may not like it, but then you have to propose other solutions. I pointed out two way which come to my mind. I can think about other options also but what I don’t know and nobody ever will. What’s the most promising way? I’m afraid we never will know till we try.
If you forbid gen manipulation you may doom mankind to war, poverty and it may mean we’re going to kill children. That is not unprecedented: See the south sea civilizations.
They keys are:
but I can not find any reason why I should follow the US election campaign. It will have influence the Germany with high probability even the earth will get influenced. Both are terrible candidates but can we find a difference? Yes there is Hillary is grown up in this hell, and well Trump does have his share of ignorance and hate from the political establishment. (see e.g: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/trump-steuererklaerung-101.html) it’s about the tax declaration of Trump, which he seems not to like seeing published. But hey it’s expected according to Hillary.
However both have nothing which would make him/her a good candidate. If Trump really means USA first, one has to ask what does it mean. Does it mean eh would order back the soldiers world-wide? If not why not?
Hillary, is establishment and I’m afraid the president ship from here man has shown here what to expect. She’s a liar that’s for sure but she is probably intelligent enough for estimating the reactions on her and what Bill Clinton has done to her. I don’t think she would have stick to Bill, if she would not give a dime on public opinion. She knows all to well to play by the rules and bend them to her advantage. I guess in the end she will be quite the larger evil – but what does that mean if it will get paid in blood?
I’m still surprised that nothing was made up against Trump. some sexual harassment, some suspicious words, repeated over and over again. Nothing at all, and even more easy for CIA, FBI why not find some drugs with him or somewhere he has been?
The so called scandals make up a kind of made up, but that was really poor done, still nothing seem to stick to Trump, that really does surprise me. That Hillary is not persecuted, just shows how well she knows the rules and how fine she knows to take advantage for herself. Trump seems to me way too straight and Hillary is as infamous as you can imagine.
Does Trump oversee what he requests? Well I’m afraid in the area of freedom he’s too well integrated into the unfree rules of the US economy. I’m quite sure he knows the rules, and I’m also sure he knows his way around them. Still I would give Hillary an advantage. So she seems to be a more arrogant liar. This may be seen by quite a few more and so I could imagine this will give an edge of Trump over Hillary.
So to make end this message. I do think Trump will win with around 55/45 % with a more than 60 % likeliness – meaning Trump will win. I have a bad idea about the goodness for the world of that but I don’t think Hillary would be just a bit better. The choice is in the end none, no one is better then the other and they both are worse for the US and world. So would you rather suffer toothache of headache? Of would you prefer to die by getting shot or getting hanged. Some choices are no choices at all and that is my opinion about them both. None of them is a good candidate and they will be both worse then even Obama and that really is hardly a good thing.
I’m sure we’ll see more limits to freedom for everyone. And we’ll see more debts with both of them. Will the break come within the first ruling time? I doubt it, FED will print and people will still believe that printing makes a difference. It does, but to no good end, the break-down will be harsher. Do I see any softer landing with any of the both? No. They are too used to the wrong doings of the actual politics.
Well now quite some months later, some came or state similar expectations. Especially Bill Bonner. https://bonnerandpartners.com/the-deep-state-is-now-in-charge/ Well you can see what I’ve so say about that. Just another: Hit – sunk.
Laws are there to save the leaders from their population, not the other way round. Police is there to protect the leaders and so they can’t and won’t protect the population from their leaders. It’s illegal to attack, oppress or otherwise humiliate the leaders it’s the monopoly of force which is claimed for the police. So whatever there might be the politicians are not there for your best and the police is not there to protect you.
Now how does that change? That’s easy if the current leader are removed, others take their place and the game starts again. Whatever the police did it will be well not forgotten but disregarded. But then the police just protects the new leaders.
There is just a small interruption if a state does loose as much as e.g the Germans. After a break down there is a small period in which police is not that corrupted the “normal” laws do hold. Government is very mall an not so intrusive. The people go their way which usually means bartering and honest trade, Yes there always will be liars and the like but overall most do know quite well what mine and yours means – at the beginning of a cycle.
We’re without doubt at the end of a cycle and the oppression through the ruling can’t be ignored and not be seen. And so we do live in dangerous times. You try to get rid of your old government too early, you get killed, you leave to late and may get killed from the new government. There is a small window in which you gain may gain the own might to oppression.
Killing people through police is seen as a unlawful government, and so I think the people do feel treated extremely unjust. That may work for some time. But now see what the murderer of police has said, He wanted to kill them, you may ask rightly if that really is a criminal act or an act of self defense. The author is IMHO very right, if the ruling can break the law and never will get prosecuted, there is IMHO a right ot fight the ruling with whatever means there is.
Maybe you should not be justs shocked by the killing of the policemen but about the unjust ruling class. And never forget for one side it a criminal on the other side a hero. It very much depends on who survives whom and if the current ruling class is overthrown or not. The war against the Empire was seen as a fight for freedom for the US, do you think it was seen that way from the rulers of the empire?
If the current rulings ones are overthrown and the cop killer will survive and get in the position to oppress himself, you will surely read, he was a freedom fighter. If he will get killed by the old government he’ll be just a murderer. And I’m sure most US-citizens will see him as a killer – yet. But just wait a few years, wait for the coming wars under Hillary or Trump, there will be a day the support will break. And you can bet from there on the times turn from very bad to catastrophe….
There is but one way. Put right in front of law and get rid of unjust laws. Will that happen? But look into Atlas Shrugged and you’ll see what will happen next. I can assure you it will be more oppression and much for weapons for the supporters of the current system…
It can not get better:
“The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be trusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
“While you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and in any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
“No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in the country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give.
“The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”
There’s very few in literature which lives up to this words. The most prominent example is maybe D’Anconias defence of money from Atlas Shrugged.
You can read it’s for the wealthy. I don’t think so. It’s for those who want the system to stay. Just imagine a different case. Assume that the laws would be in the way to not hinder free trade by any means – hardly any taxes, no tarifs, no laws for any producing corporation, no public health system, no public welfare.
What would that be for the unproductive? That would be their personal hell. If they would have to offer something they probably will earn their living. But can you imagine how a “gender scientist” will get paid for his stuff? What would be a job of a tollkeeper,what would be with thos checking the taxes? They all would not find work in such kind of work. It simply does not yield something. It just burns money.
The really wealthy do have to offer something everyone wants. And so the people do give them their money voluntarily. But agreed it’s even easer if you would not have a choice, and so bribing for large corporations is rewarding.
So the reayl point is that the redistribution runs along the lines from the hands of the productive into the hands of the moocher.
This suits also: http://www.rottmeyer.de/frau-lagarde-als-vorreiterin/ (it’s in German, but search for Bill Bonner and I’m sure you’ll find that in english somewhere also)