This is the begging-for-the-overthrow-of-a-corrupt-status-quo economy we have thanks to the Federal Reserve giving the J. P. Morgans and Jamie Dimons of the world the means to skim and scam the bottom 95%. Dear Jamie Dimon: quick quiz: which words/phrases are associated with you and your employer, J. P. Morgan? Looting, pillage, rapacious, exploitive, only saved from collapse by massive intervention by the Federal Reserve, the source of rising wealth inequality, crony capitalism, privatized profits-socialized losses, low interest rates = gift from savers to banks, bloviating overpaid C. E. O., propaganda favoring the financial elite, tool of the top .01%, destroyer of democracy, financial fraud goes unpunished, free money for financiers, debt-serfdom, produces nothing of value to society or the bottom 99.5%. Jamie, if you answered “all of them,” you’re correct. The only reason you have a soapbox from which you can bloviate is the central bank (Federal Reserve) saved you and your neofeudal looting machine (bank) from well-deserved oblivion in 2008-09, and the unprecedented, co-ordinated campaign by global central banks to buy trillions of dollars of bonds and stocks.
There’s a very simple principle that helps form the bedrock of any prosperous and civilized society. When people do bad things, they should be punished for it. The moment that rule is turned upside down, and the wicked and weak are rewarded for their behavior, society will crumble. There’s no way around it. Every society that rewards bad behavior is on the fast track to destruction. You might think that would be obvious, but there are plenty of nations throughout history that have fallen under the weight of corruption, in one form or another. Our species has made this mistake countless times. We never learn, and we always pay for it. Next on the chopping block of history is Denmark, where the police in the city of Aarhus are now essentially rewarding people who have been accused of being terrorists.
This post was published at shtfplan on August 14th, 2017.
Here is what Donald Trump should call for this morning. This is the right time to up his ante in the struggle against the Lgenpresse. All his efforts to fix the sinking ship of the US society are in vain with a breach below the waterline. If the Fake News applauds every jerk in a mantle who stops a presidential decree, the jerks will multiply and president’s decrees will be worth what? A collector’s rarity. A quirky exhibit from the days of Donald Trump’s short-lived presidency. The fake news media ridiculed the POTUS so completely, that this big man with big orange hair shrunk down to Lilliput’s finger. Trump can’t get out of his disposition by foreign policy acts. Forget about North Korea. It is a big hedgehog: a lot of bother to catch and kill, many prickles and no meat. The only thing Kim wants to tell Trump is ‘I am not a soft target, go look elsewhere’. Is North Korea dangerous? Only for those who want to step on it. P G Wodehouse’s Mr Mulliner argued with anti-smoker lobby: ‘They come and tell me that if they place two drops of nicotine on the tongue of a dog the animal instantly dies and when I ask them if they have ever tried the childishly simple device of not placing nicotine on the dog’s tongue, they have nothing to reply They are nonplussed. They go away mumbling something about never having thought of that before.’
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 13, 2017.
Macron’s funding reveals that elite Socialists were really behind him changing the label to sell a centrist agenda, but in reality, to maintain their agenda. Macron was able to raise funds from French abroad with the promises of change, and this targeted particularly the French who fled Hollande living in London and New York. He did a photo-op with Nobel Prize laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz before journalists who is critical of the management of globalization, against laissez-faire economists who he classifies a ‘free market fundamentalists’, as well as international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Stiglitz is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University and is a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank. He was also a former member and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton and supported Hillary over Obama saying she is more ‘liberal’ (socialist) than Obama. Stiglitz believes in Georgism, which is a variety of Marxism whereby the State should own all the resources derived from land, which is an old Physicocrat(French) idea that wealth is derived from land. In this way, all natural resources should belong to government from mining to energy just for starters as if government operated industries ever ran efficient or were free from corruption. He also supported a single tax for all and believes that, while people should own the value what they produce themselves with everything derived from land should belong to government characterized as belonging equally to all members of society (government).
“While the idea of admitting that a bureaucracy is necessary, I must also admit that marketers are liars and if left unregulated will rival politicians in their dishonesty when making product claims. Both admissions shake my libertarian sensibilities to the core.” First, a free market eventually corrects for the condition of “marketers are liars,” unlike with politicians. Furthermore, not ALL marketers are liars. Second, what makes you think the FDA, or any government bureaucracy for that matter, doesn’t lie? If one thinks we need an FDA, then one should think that we also need an EPA, FED, NLRB, EEOC, and on, and on, and on … further violating your libertarian sensibilities. The head administrator of the FDA is pretty much a revolving door with Big Pharma: is government regulation always the knee jerk reaction to every ill that affects society? Can you creatively think of some other solutions that don’t violate the Constitution of the United States? Keep reading, and maybe some other ideas will present themselves. More people die every year from legalized drugs than from taking supplements, not to mention the drugs the FDA eventually gets around to recalling, after they’ve already done their damage. In addition, the FDA is continually pushed by vested interests (Big Pharma and lobbied government officials) to cut corners so that drugs can get to market faster. So much for the efficacy of the FDA! So, you want more of the same? lot of medical doctors are in the back pocket of Big Pharma, not to mention the AMA: can go here to find out if your particular doctor is on the take:
This post was published at Gary North on March 25, 2017.
While U. S. political journalist Matt Taibbi has made no bones about his dislike of Donald Trump… (via Rolling Stone a day after the election) Most of us smarty-pants analysts never thought Trump could win because we saw his run as a half-baked white-supremacist movement fueled by last-gasp, racist frustrations of America’s shrinking silent majority. Sure, Trump had enough jackbooted nut jobs and conspiracist stragglers under his wing to ruin the Republican Party. But surely there was no way he could topple America’s reigning multicultural consensus. How could he? After all, the country had already twice voted in an African-American Democrat to the White House. Yes, Trump’s win was a triumph of the hideous racism, sexism and xenophobia that has always run through American society. But his coalition also took aim at the neoliberal gentry’s pathetic reliance on proxies to communicate with flyover America. They fed on the widespread visceral disdain red-staters felt toward the very people Hillary Clinton’s campaign enlisted all year to speak on its behalf: Hollywood actors, big-ticket musicians, Beltway activists, academics, and especially media figures. Trump’s rebellion was born at the intersection of two toxic American myths, the post-racial society and the classless society.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jan 15, 2017.
Rapacity performed by an outgoing Democratic president is intentionally downplayed or simply ignored by the mainstream media. We saw such unbridled rapacity in the atavistic way the Clintons left the White House when they departed in 2000. They stole and/or vandalized furniture and furnishings of the White House and left it in a deplorable state. From a perspective of his official actions, Bill Clinton did things such as pardon Tommy Rich and closed a few loopholes to ensure his Clinton Foundation deals did not fall apart after he surrendered the Oval Office. The Obamas are not following suit in the manner of the Clintons with pillaging the White House for three reasons. Firstly, although he committed dozens of offenses that would have merited it, Obama was not impeached, whereas Clinton was. For those who may hold askance with the conditions of impeachment for Obama, let us remember that under the parameters of the National Defense Authorization Act and the tenets of more than half a dozen overlapping executive orders, the United States (and the world) were ‘redefined’ as a ‘battlefield’ in the war on terror. The emergency status has never been lifted: that status was affirmed and inculcated under the Bush administration shortly after 9/11 that categorized us as being in a state of war (against terrorism) and a continuous state of emergency. Under such ‘wartime’ conditions, the words of Obama in 2012 were clearly treasonous and constituted an impeachable offense.
This post was published at shtfplan on December 30th, 2016.
It’s now been almost three weeks since Donald Trump’s shocking (to mainstream propaganda media outlets) victory over Hillary Clinton and her establishment cronies in the presidential election. Despite an overwhelming electoral victory, the furious liberals and their captured media outlets have been conducting a full court press to somehow overturn the verdict of the American people through intimidation of electors, recounts funded by unknown parties, and Soros funded violent protests in liberal enclaves across the country. Meanwhile those of us who work for a living and pay the taxes, allowing the free shit army to protest at their leisure, have continued to go to work in order to make money to support our families just as we did before Trump was elected. As I’ve detailed in dozens of previous articles about the 30 Blocks of Squalor, West Philadelphia is a product of the ‘Great Society’ welfare state and sixty years of total Democrat control of Philadelphia government. While white working middle class Americans voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump on November 8, the reality challenged voters in Philadelphia cast 82% of their votes for a corrupt establishment hack and only 15% for Trump. The black voters on the 30 Blocks of Squalor, ignored and taken for granted by Democrat politicians since the 1950s, cast 93% of their votes for Crooked Hillary. It is baffling how these people would continue to vote for their own servitude, trapped in squalor, dependent upon the state for survival, and wallowing in ignorance produced by government indoctrination public schools.
“Listening to the leading figures of the Democratic party establishment, however, you’d never know it. Cool contentment is the governing emotion in these circles. What they have in mind for 2016 is what we might call a campaign of militant complacency. They are dissociated from the mood of the nation, and they do not care… What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation [with corporate corruption] but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of the situation.” Thomas Frank “Too many of America’s elites-among the super-rich, the CEOs, and many of my colleagues in academia-have abandoned a commitment to social responsibility. They chase wealth and power, the rest of society be damned.” Jeffrey Sachs “This elite-generated social control maintains the status quo because the status quo benefits and validates those who created and sit atop it. People rise to prominence when they parrot the orthodoxy rather than critically analyze it. Intellectual regurgitation is prized over independent thought. Real change in politics or society cannot occur under the orthodoxy because if it did, it would threaten the legitimacy of the professional class and all of the systems that helped them achieve their status. Kristine Mattis, The Cult of the Professional Class The continuing reaction of the liberal elite to the repudiation of the Democratic establishment by their traditional constituencies of the young and working people is a wonder to behold. They thrash back and forth between a denial of their failure, and disgust at everyone else they can blame for it.
As the dust settles from the recent presidential election, it’s becoming clear that a large part of the sentiment behind the vote for Trump reflects a deep dissatisfaction from middle and lower-class working families. The traditional fruits of prosperity have been rising higher and farther out of reach for them, as their ability to make a living wage has been eroding year-over-year, for decades. They’ve now reached the point where they no longer trust the empty promises that have been sold them by a steady stream of politicians — on both side of the aisle — who have lined their own pockets with lobbyist money while overseeing a tremendous shift of society’s wealth to crony corporations and the top 1%. Trump’s victory can largely be summed up as a defiant yelp from the masses decrying: “I may not know what the solution is, but I’m damn sure more of the same ain’t it!” Of course, we here at PeakProsperity.com are in full agreement with that righteous anger. Through borrowing way too much, bailing out rather than prosecuting bad actors, printing trillions of “thin air” dollars, a deliberate pursuit of financial repression and other schemes — the future prosperity of the “everyday American” has been stolen by those in power and those positioned closest to the trough. Mathematically, this orgy of excess needs to be balanced by severe austerity; an austerity the elites refuse to suffer but are forcing onto everybody else. No wonder the masses are pissed. Few visuals drive this injustice home better than this one of historical bank CD interest rates. Note how they’ve been in steady collapse since the mid-1980s:
Editor’s Comment: Is it really any wonder that the most dangerous leaders in society, and their cadre of supporters, are always urging everyone to vote? Democracy has been sanctified because of its symbolic indication that the will and the voice of the people is being considered. Grand sweeping sentiments, ‘democracy,’ the ‘American way’ and so forth. But perhaps it is a model that never could live up to the needs of society… if voting just means picking the personality of your dictator, then there is noting to vote for. Not sure all the things asserted in this article should be implemented either, but it is worth keeping mind that the population and size of the societies that first instituted democracy in Ancient Greece, etc. have little in common with the easily divided, multi-dimensional population base in the United States – with a whopping 315,000,000 people being represented by 1-of-2 presidential candidates, and 535 people in Congress. The most populous state in the U. S., California, is represented by 2 Senators – at a ratio of about 1 to 19 million, and each of its 53 representatives in Congress theoretically represent the views of more than 700,000 people. In Wyoming, the least populous U. S. state, 1 House member represents about a half million people, and each of their 2 senators represent about 232,00o people. Anyway you slice it, no matter what system or values you believe in, that’s a lot of people being represented by a very few… and almost none of those representatives are able to resist corruption, avoid tainted lobbyist money or uphold their promises to voters. So you tell me what the solution is? Mathematicians Prove Society is Way Too Complex to Have A President Mathematics, a report published by Vice’s Motherboard prior to Election Day suggests, proves society is so complex that democracies have been rendered irrelevant. According to a study carried out by mathematicians at the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), it is difficult for government entities or single individuals to debate what these mathematicians call ‘social policy’ if the goal is to find something that works for everyone. Once we consider that members of any society are simply too complex, the study suggests, we are able to understand that the systems of government currently available fail to meet our expectations.
This post was published at shtfplan on November 18th, 2016.
A video by David Wolfe about the town of Auroville, India is being shared around social media again and the town is presented as a self-sustaining, utopian paradise void of such unseemly hindrances as money, religion, and politics. Unfortunately, like nearly everything circulating in the meme-feed these days, if it seems too good to be true it is. In this case, the information presented by the video maker should be rated by PolitiFact as a ‘pants on fire lie.’ Digging beneath the surface, however, reveals that the City of the Dawn established in 1968 by a person called ‘The Mother’ is rife with predictable economic realities that border on hilarities when compared to the presentation in David Wolfe’s 60-second Facebook video. I’ll only address Wolfe’s claims here and won’t even go into the matters of corruption and crime which have become serious problems in Auroville. Auroville as a ‘Moneyless Society’ Theoretically, the only ways a society could exist without money would be a barter economy, void of any medium of exchange, or a complete command economy. A thorough perusal of Auroville’s official website, however, reveals that neither of these hypothetical organizations fits Auroville’s situation, though redistribution of production is influenced by a central authority.
The present day offers the opportunity for many incredible experiences. Perhaps one of the most rewarding of all is bearing witness to the final days before the greatest economic crackup the world’s ever known. Not since Nero clipped coins in 64 A. D. and fiddled as Rome burned has there been such an intolerable collection of dingleberries in imperial office. John Maynard Keynes, the godfather of modern day economic planning, in his 1919 work, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, wrote: ‘There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency.’ Incidentally, Keynes attributed this acute insight to another innovative central planner, one Vladimir Lenin. Regrettably, these two visionaries predicted today’s present state of affairs with remarkable foresight. Here we are, nearly 100 years later, and the currency has been near fully debauched. What’s more, the basis of society has been completely overturned. Gawping at the Presidential debate earlier this week made this all too apparent. Two hominids, panting at the watering hole, squawking and shrieking over who gets to divvy up and dole out the peanuts. One wants to transfer wealth from the rich via payments to the poor. The other wants to rebuild the nation’s crumbly airports and bridges using money from somewhere.
Ken Rogoff is by all accounts a brilliant man. The Harvard professor and former IMF chief economist is a chess grandmaster. His thesis committee included current Fed vice-chair Stanley Fischer. But like many survivors of Ivy League hoop jumping, the poor fellow appears to have emerged punch drunk. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from Rogoff’s new book, The Curse of Cash , which, in effect, proposes a ban on paper currency. It’s terrifying piece of work, for several reasons. First, the cashless society, which Rogoff proposes in order to make it easier for the US government to confiscate private wealth, in effect, amounts to an admission that Washington can’t pay back its debts. Second, the fact that Rogoff uses the fight against ‘terrorism’ and ‘crime’ arguments in selling his proposals to the public – justifications which he as a mathematician should know are farcical – suggest that his arguments hide another agenda. Third, and most important, is the fact that not only would banning cash not achieve Rogoff’s objectives – it could cause irreparable harm to the dollar’s role in the American economy and as a reserve currency. Let’s look at these arguments one at a time.
They call us technophobes and luddites, or whatever derogatory term used to describe those who don’t automatically go along with the ‘latest and greatest’ scientific invention. But is it really asking too much to question whether or not it is okay to unleash an invention on society without learning about the possible effects before doing so? Is merely questioning the safety of new technology before implementing it such a ludicrous proposal? Are we so in love with what we can invent that we cannot even fathom that anyone should be allowed to posit an opposing opinion without provoking the wrath of the scientific community? If so, this is not truly science, but the ego-driven machinations of corporate-controlled narcissists masquerading as scientists. And woe to the world if we continue buying into their schemes. We love the newest and most inventive toys. We like to play. We like to be ‘number one’ and proudly display our acquisitions. But just when does this tendency turn into a fatal attraction and end up costing us our very lives? In the latest scheme to force new and dangerous technology down our throats, we find that Monsanto is now merging with Bayer. Another Solutia solution for Monsanto’s Glyphosate woes.
This post was published at FarmWars on Sept 15, 2016.
Authored by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic, The Burning Platform’s quote of the day sums it all up perfectly: ‘The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.’ George Orwell Contemporary governance embodies corruption within deranged systems resting on foundations of theft and fraud. Corruption makes reform impossible; derangement assures eventual collapse. ‘Defense’ spending is a misnomer. The US could defend itself at a small fraction of what it spends on its military and intelligence. The US government’s foreign intervention and maintenance of a confederated empire are actually a welfare and transfer payment program. Spending has become the point: maximizing the payoff to military and intelligence contractors, their think tanks and lobbying arms, captured politicians, and the vast bureaucracies. Winning wars doesn’t serve the interests of those beneficiaries, lengthy and inconclusive engagements do. The war on terrorism is a mother lode. The enemy is whomever the government deems it to be, wherever the government chooses to fight it. The war itself creates more terrorism. Victory cannot be defined; the war will go on as long as the current ideology remains in place. It enriches the military-intelligence-industrial complex, but a war-without-end welfare program is clearly deranged, a fitting target of satire. It will continue indefinitely because its beneficiaries have far more incentive and resources to promote their interests than the rest of us have in promoting peace.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 9, 2016.
‘When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion; when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you; when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice you may know that your society is doomed.’ – Ayn Rand Last year I read aloud for my kids the children’s story: ‘The Rats of NIMH’. It’s a story about a mother with an ailing son, who is forced to seek out help from a community of rats. She and her son are field mice. The rat community ‘evolved’ from a laboratory experiment designed to improve intelligence. It worked, the rats escaped, aware and fully conscious. They went on to build a complex society, though living off the farmer. Ultimately, they are faced with the difficult decision to risk current comforts for a more sustainable life.
Ten years ago, South America was witnessing the rise of what came to be known as the “pink tide.” Characterized by an allegedly kinder and softer version of socialism than the “red” communism of Castro’s Cuba, the pink tide had begun with the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 1998, followed by the election of Lula da Silva in Brazil in 2002, and followed by the rise of the Kirchners in Argentina in 2003. The tide continued to roll in with the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia in 2006, and Rafael Correa’s election in Ecuador in 2007. As these new leftist candidates gained traction, their success was said to herald a new era of leftist politics in South America that would bring to an end the “neoliberal” consensus and impose a new, more humane economics on Latin American society. Eighteen years after Hugo Chavez’s inauguration, things haven’t gone quite as planned. The economy of Venezuela is in seemingly terminal decline with riots, shortages, and enforced slave laborimposed in an attempt to force more production out of the population. Meanwhile, the economies of Brazil and Argentina – while not comparable to Venezuela – are among the worst in Latin America, with Brazil heading for its its worst depression since 1901. As economies worsened, corruption and authoritarian tactics worsened as well. Venezuelans have gotten the worst of it with citizens groaning under the weight of a police state that shuts down small business and persecutes even the smallest entrepreneurs for alleged economic “crimes” such as being a “class traitor.” In her final years, Kristina Kirchner became increasingly autocratic and paranoid, going so far as to prosecute and impose fines on economists who made economic forecasts the Argentinian state found to be be unflattering. Meanwhile in Brazil, corruption reached new heights as President Rousseff – the pink-tide successor to da Silva – attempted to save the economy and her political career by showering her political allies with “stimulus” cash.
Ayn Rand’s statement below is so contextually true as we live in an era where people are allowed to do immoral things and escape with little or minimal consequence simply because it’s legal or they have enough money to legally stonewall or escape justice. “You may know society is doomed when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you; [and] when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice.” -Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged”, 1957 Ideally, Hillbent.com’s J. Clinton Hill exclaims, our leaders are exalted to positions of authority for the purpose of protecting and serving our society, yet some commit crimes against us.
This post was published at Zero Hedge on Sep 3, 2016.
Europe’s Competition Directorate commands the shock troops of the EU power structure. Ensconced in its fortress at Place Madou, it can dispatch swat teams on corporate dawn raids across Europe without a search warrant. It operates outside the normal judicial control that we take for granted in a developed democracy. The US Justice Department could never dream of acting in such a fashion. Known as ‘DG Comp’, it acts as judge, jury, and executioner, and can in effect impose fines large enough to constitute criminal sanctions, but without the due process protection of criminal law. It misused evidence so badly in pursuit of the US chipmaker Intel that the company alleged a violation of human rights. Apple is just the latest of the great US digital companies to face this Star Chamber. It has vowed to appeal the monster 13bn fine handed down from Brussels this week for violation of EU state aid rules, but the only recourse is the European Court of Justice. This is usually a forlorn ritual. The ECJ is a political body, the enforcer of the EU’s teleological doctrines. It ratifies executive power. We can mostly agree that Apple, Google, Starbucks, and others have gamed the international system, finding legal loopholes to whittle down their tax liabilities and enrich shareholders at the expense of society. It is such moral conduct that has driven wealth inequality to alarming levels, and provoked a potent backlash against globalisation.