Transcript: http://bit.ly/HnLtCp

'...feminism will eventually help bring about an economic and social collapse. Many people are simply unable to wrap their heads around that idea, because we've all been told, ad nauseum, that feminism is a cause of prosperity, when in reality, it is largely--perhaps entirely – a consequence of it.

And I'm going to borrow a bit from another blogger, Rob of the blog No Ma'am, and read a portion of his description of patriarchy and lifelong monogamous marriage, because he explained it EXTREMELY effectively.

"When one stands back and observes the whole lot, we see that both males and females have a surplus and a shortage:

"Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

"Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

"Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

"The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.

"The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

"In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.

"In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.

"So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them.

"(Note that while the children of a marriage are supposed to belong to the husband, children born out of wedlock are the property of the woman. A woman who is not married owns her own sexuality and the products/children of that sexuality are also her property).

"This is also why, in the past, women were so much more harshly condemned for adultery than men. The wife's sexuality was no longer hers to give away.

"This is why, in the past, when a woman was raped it was considered an act of theft against the husband. Someone “stole” the sexuality which was his property.

"This is why, in the past, it was considered impossible for a husband to be found guilty of spousal rape. How can you possibly steal your own property?

"So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

"But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths. The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”

Patriarchy worked very well for society overall, because it provided women with the surplus labor they required in order to raise their children in the best possible circumstances AT NO COST to anyone but husbands and fathers. And men's ownership of their children motivated the vast majority of men to do more than just subsist – to essentially labor at more than minimum capacity. That meant that a lot of work got done, and the economic surplus men generated was handed directly to the women who needed it. Of course this arrangement benefitted some women more than others (the ones who married rich), and some men more than others (the ones whose wives didn't turn out to be barren), and could easily benefit one party in a particular marriage more than the other. But for the most part, in its function as the smallest building block of society, it worked like whoa and like damn.

Feminists fought and still fight for women's reproductive freedom, but they don't seem to worry too much about the lack of responsibility demonstrated by women's growing penchant for getting pregnant and having children out of wedlock at rates of up to 60%, at a time when they have almost total control over their fertility. And despite women having 100% power of decision over reproduction (no matter what the man does or doesn't do), very few feminists believe those women should be held 100% financially responsible for those decisions. Not only should abortions be free, but child support automatic. Despite having no say in any of these decisions, men are still held partly responsible, and we ALL are as well, through the increased social spending required to make all reproductive choices on the part of women as burden-free as possible.

Reproduction may be women's burden, but it's their power as well, and feminism seems happy to not only indulge any irresponsible exercising of that power, but has suggested and implemented measures designed to ensure every decision a woman might make wrt her reproductive capacity, whether wise or foolish, comes with as little cost to the woman making it as possible.

Now that the transfer of surplus labor from men to women must go through a middle-man, who takes a slice of that pie only to get fatter and hungrier, you actually need more and more productivity on the ground to both provide for women and children, and feed the beast of government. In western countries, that beast has grown to 100x the size it was before women's suffrage, and has begun pulling out the visa card willy nilly – pledging the labor of our children to foreign governments to finance the largesse of today.

But what have we done? We've removed all the motivation men have to be economic generators by removing all the benefit to them of marriage and children, so more and more are refusing to do the 50 hour a week thing and are opting for part time jobs, beer and x-box instead. Others are simply so damaged and handicapped by the system we've created that they are incapable of being productive at all. So we actually have LESS productivity on the ground. And those children we're relying on to get us out of hock when foreign governments start calling in the debts, are only going to become less able to save our asses with every generation of them raised in single mother households.

Men paying a greater share of the taxes is what's been funding all of this. But because of our decision to prioritize women's educations over men's, this generation of men are now more likely to drop out at all levels of education, less likely to attend post-secondary, and already earn 8% less than women do under 30. We are actually handicapping the earning power of the people who fund the system women need, and prioritizing training and education for the people who are least likely to exploit it to its full economic potential. We are allowing women to banish fathers from their children's lives at no cost to themselves – in fact, the rewards to women for doing so are myriad and tangible – when we KNOW this disadvantages children and generates current and future costs to society. And we are disincentivizing men's productivity by offering them no realistic opportunity for children that are actually theirs, or marriages that will last longer than a few years, after which all benefit to them is gone, while all the costs and obligations remain.'

"In an absence of principles all that guides you is immediate self-interest. That's the drugs, that's the sex, that's the divorce. Massive growth of the State. The National Debt. Without principles there's nothing to apologize for."

"The great danger to society is not that children don't listen to society, the great danger is that they do."

'Parliamentary democracy is farce. That is one of many benefits provided to us by the unraveling of the EU. The elites who have created the promotional elements of regulatory democracy and parliaments did so with the idea that that this meme would be an effective replacement for the Divinity of Kings meme. Both are equally inadequate in our view. God did not choose Kings – not any more than people nowadays choose their democratic leaders. The mask has slipped a little. We see the iron fist beneath the velvet glove. The entire mechanism of elite control is on display in Greece. We've watched it unfold, as you have, dear reader. The mechanism is NOT being driven by an ideology or vision of a unified Europe. It's being driven by a merciless power elite that wants to keep Europe together as a region in order to use it and other regions to build world government. In the future the story will be told that forward-looking leaders created the European Union and then found it worked so well that they created a Union of the World. For this reason, among others, they don't want the Union to collapse. The intelligentsia has fallen away, and this too is a problem. Without an intelligentsia willingly proselytizing directed history, its imposition becomes more difficult to maintain and mold.'

Vlad Teichberg, Co-Founder, globalrevolution.tv: "These principles of equality are going to redefine everything. Because we're basically creating the new United Nations except it's not the united nations, it's the united people." -- Useful idiots are useful

"You who ask for welfare and handouts, and free education, free healthcare – are just as wrong as the 1percenters you protest. You're just not as good at using the guns of government as they are. The great divide is not between the 1percent and 99percent ... the great divide is between those who are willing to use the force of government to meet their ends, and the rest of us who want to find peaceful, cooperative, free-market solutions to society's problems – or at least, just want to be left alone by the moochers – the grandiose and the petty – and the social engineers, the deluded, the scammers, and even the 'well-meaning'."

"...ultimately, the bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!”

'I have to say that I share most — if not all — the goals of the honest Left, which would be embodied in a constantly rising standard of living for the lowest economic classes. I often find myself watching Democracy Now for its antiwar, free-speech, and anti-death-penalty stances. But the big problem with the honest Left is their absolute and obstinate refusal to learn the most basic economic principles. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is no different, and it is a real pity that all this energy and frustration can't be put to use toward achieving their goal. Many demands are being made, but sadly, if these were ever implemented, they would make problems worse by lowering the standard of living for all — especially for the poor! I will proceed to address some of the demands in plain English, hoping to reach out to them.'

'Across the Atlantic, the global financial troubles have reached the UK, as it becomes the latest nation to feel the pinch. Rating's giant Moody's has downgraded 12 of Britain's financial firms and banks, including the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB. That comes after the Bank of England chief said the country's economy is at its lowest point since the 1930s if not ever. RT gets more on this from British Euro MP, Godfrey Bloom.' -- "If [money-printing] was successful, why doesn't he give money-printing machines to every family in the United Kingdom, that they could put in their attic and print money whenever they wanted to go buy something?"

'The Anglosphere power elite needs to create an “us against them” mentality and free-market thinking doesn’t yield that sort of analysis. The Internet has been a big stumbling block to their efforts to further socialize the world’s economy on the march towards global governance. But now, thanks to Occupy Wall Street, the 1930s socialist dialogue is beginning to replay itself. Occupy Wall Street is making all this possible. There’s no gainsaying it now. The reason that the organizers wouldn’t release goals was because the entire effort has been a kind of power-elite setup. No one wanted the movement to reveal what it really was until it had gained some momentum. They’ve been after this meme for at least four years now without much success. Or course that doesn’t mean they won’t keep trying. They never give up and they have endless resources with which to work.'

'A tribute to the glorious accomplishments of many decades of communist governments around the world.' -- This is what democide looks like.

'Every time Merkel meets with Sarkozy in one of their "no, no, yes, yes" liaisons, European stock markets rise. There is some vague language about another round of bailouts. Investors rush in to buy, buy, buy. The fund managers are not rewarded to produce long-term capital gains. So, they cannot resist buying whenever Merkel and Sarkozy emerge from their tryst to tell the world that they are willing to let Germany bail out the Greek bond market one more time. This is great political theater. The funds' memos to major banks regarding the funds' refusal to roll over their short-term loans can go out at any time. No one wants to be the first fund to trigger a banking panic. But no one wants to be left holding the bag. This is why predictions regarding the day of reckoning are highly speculative. The major decisions will not be made by banks. They will be made by fund managers with large deposits at banks. The bankers are just sitting there, hoping for the best.'

'Don't underestimate him! I don't think he is stupid at all. Obama is a political ideologue with a dogmatic adhesion to communism that he plans to shove down our throats whether we like it or not. He is what Eric Hoffer called a "true believer." Take this man seriously as the student of Frank Marshall Davis, the black CPUSA member who was his mentor during his formative years in Hawaii. Consider his communist "class warfare" references, his Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) membership, his repeated inferences to colonialism, class struggle and other communist "hit words." There is not one successful case of a socialist or communist state in world history. Did any of these Obamaites ever study history? Well, of course they did but just exactly like every one of their predecessors, their effort will be different and it will work because they are so much smarter than the rest of us.' -- None dare call it communism.

'Like most pupils, Merkel was a member of the official, Socialist-led youth movement Free German Youth (FDJ). However, she did not take part in the secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe, which was common in East Germany, and was confirmed instead. Later, at the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for "Agitprop" (Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel herself claimed that she was secretary for culture. When Merkel's onetime FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted that: "According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I know? I believe I won't know anything when I'm 80." Merkel's progress in the compulsory Marxism-Leninism course was graded only genügend (sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.' -- Did not inhale.

'The Keynesian assumption has always been that lenders should invest money in government bonds. Government bond markets are the foundation of all Keynesian theories of counter-cyclical spending by governments. We never hear a unified cry from Keynesians in boom times that it is time to cut government spending and start paying off the government's debt. We are told that Keynes called for counter-cyclical policy in boom times, not just bust times. That meant running surpluses to reduce the debt. But we never see quotations from Keynes to this effect. We never see signed statements from Keynesian economists calling for debt reduction. There is a reason for this. Keynesian economics is welfare state economics. It has always been a cover for wealth-redistribution. Officially, this wealth redistribution has been justified in the name of helping the poor. Operationally, it has always been wealth transfers to very large banks.'

'...the [2+2=5] continues to promote the psychological perspective of victimhood. The cost of this perspective is dear. Feelings of powerlessness, of helplessness, and of personal impotence are psychologically devastating. Such feelings are prescriptions for depression, anxiety, and misery, and they undermine a sense of personal agency and efficacy – the sense that you have the ability to make things happen in your life. Though the leaders of the [2+2=5] enjoy the benefits of making important things happen, their world view has the effect of instilling this sense of victimhood in its followers – with one exception: by participating in the overwhelming movement of historical and social forces in which those on the [2+2=5] believe, you get to be a member of a powerful group. By being part of the movement of the [2+2=5], you get to feel the power of history, the power of natural forces sweeping you and your cohorts to the vanguard of the new world order – or so you think.'

'A graphical presentation of some of the most common questions I get about freedom, peace and poverty.' -- But who will build the roads?!?!?!11

"For the 'government', voters who can be bribed with other people's money are initially assets..."

"If you unconsciously resent the unjust and exploitative authority of your parents, and you project that onto the capitalist, you will not escape brutal authority – in fact, you will only intensify it. And that intensification takes the form of the State. If you are a slave, you can't escape. Involuntaryism leads to vengeance, to anger, to rage, to fantasies of destruction. Where we are not free to choose we become slaves to hatred. If you are not free to choose your companions then displacement, distortions, rippled subterfuges in rational thought, abandonment of empiricism, retreat into rank delusion – is inevitable. Because everything that you will believe when you don't have choice will be a mask for that lack of choice ... a mask to justify abandoning choice. If you fundamentally reject choice, you cannot have as your ideal a voluntary system. If you reject voluntaryism in your personal relations, you cannot sustain voluntaryism as an ideal in your ideology."

"What is it that goes on in somebody's life that would lend them to be more susceptible to Marxism? There is a strangely stale and dead relationship that is always depicted in Marxism where there is a factory owner, a bunch of workers – and nobody else throughout the entire economic landscape. There is also within the Marxist class analysis not much room for [the idea of social mobility amongst the classes]. The capitalists can't fall and the workers can't rise. It's all frozen in time. Why [would Marxists] accept that there's no competition for workers between capitalists unless they are [unconsciously] mistaking the employer/employee relationship for the parent/child relationship? [There is no social mobility within a family.] Children are children and parents are parents. The family is communism; the family is socialistic. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs... That is the definition of the parent/child relationship."

'The mindset of the middle class is off-putting—to the heterodox, to the sovereign, and to the individualist. The mindset is a dull recital on the virtues of moderation and proscription: don't stay up too late; don't drink too much; don't exercise too hard; don't risk too much; don't challenge authority; don't question orthodoxy. Democracy is particularly appealing to the middle class because it appeals to a faux sense of empowerment. The middle class is the human equivalent of an animal herd, because it never learns the concepts of unintended consequences, moral hazards, and opportunity costs. Such concepts are never taught, for obvious reasons, in its government-run education system. That the middle class pretends to understand the concepts of freedom and liberty makes it even more contemptible. Threaten the middle class's government-sponsored rice bowl with the specifics of liberty and it reflexively reacts with the brand of opprobrium: radical.'

'This is the issue: "How can the US cease its warring when so many people in that beleaguered country depend on conflict for their employment?" The US unemployment or under-employment rate (the real one) is somewhere between 25 and 30 percent. To reduce or eliminate garrisons in both Iraq and Afghanistan would inject hundreds of thousands of additional individuals into an economy that is struggling to provide employment to available workers. (Not to mention the private-sector "defense" jobs that would be made redundant.) And assuming that the additional workers find jobs; wouldn't they be at substantially lower salaries than their existing military compensations?" Were the US to suffer such an influx of unemployed as a result of adopting a sensible foreign policy rather than acting as the policemen for global morality, it is likely that trade unions and other leftist organizations would demand the existing wages of the military workers be maintained at current levels.'

"Government" doesn't exist.

'Film maker Martin Durkin explains the full extent of the financial mess we are in: an estimated £4.8 trillion of national debt and counting. It's so big that even if every home in the UK was sold it wouldn't raise enough cash to pay it off. Durkin argues that to put Britain back on track we need to radically rethink the role of the state, stop politicians spending money in our name and introduce, among other measures, flat taxes to make Britain's economy boom again. This polemical film presented by Martin Durkin, brings economic theory to life and makes it hit home. It includes interviews with academics, economic experts, entrepreneurs, no less than four ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer and the biggest stack of £50 notes you'll never see.' -- STARVE THE BEAST

"The useful idiots, the leftists, who idealistically believe in the beauty of soviet socialist or communist system – when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That's why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. This was my instruction. Try to get into large circulation, established, conservative media. Reach filthy-rich movie-makers, intellectuals, so-called academic circles, cynical ego-centric people who can look into your eyes with angelic expression and tell you a lie. These are the most recruitable people. People who lack moral principles who are either too greedy or suffer from self importance... Your leftists... when their job is completed, they're not needed anymore. They know too much. ...they get disillusioned... they think that THEY will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against a wall and shot." -- Useful idiot is useful!

'To run a really successful tyranny, the leaders must have increasing wealth as well as more reliable data. They need wealth to hire the programmers, the data collectors, and the police. Computer costs keep falling, but they fall much faster in the private sector (microcomputers) than the government sector (mainframes). Yes, governments have access to ever-growing quantities of data. But the public has far greater access to low-cost information that it uses to increase the overall complexity of society. The task of monitoring what is going on becomes ever-more utopian. The government is always falling behind... The greater the complexity of society, the less able the State is to monitor it, assess it, and use the data to control it. The police State is doomed. It cannot possibly keep up with the constant innovation of society. It cannot gain access to enough resources to maintain control. It wastes the resources it commandeers. The free market is winning.'

"Parental/sibling trauma has to go somewhere. The more it goes into the state, the less it needs to go into religion, which is why marxists were virulently anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-democratic/existing quasi- monarchical governments within Europe in the 19th century. They had given up on God and therefore all of their projections [went] out of God and into the state/corporations – which is why marxists are so virulently anti-capitalist, because the capitalist is the elder sibling and the state is the parent. That's why they focus so much of their rage onto the capitalist because the capitalist is the intermediate power, [the elder sibling who has] more power than the worker [(the younger siblings)] but less power than the state. But they can't focus on the evils of the state because if they focus on the evils of the state, they have no solution because their solution is an ultimate state."

"On the other hand, you would then assume that people who were not religious but also drawn to the same [family abuse] paradigm... that because they don't have God or Satan to project their family/sibling abuses into, they would be far more ferocious about the existing state and existing corporations. So if you're an atheist or agnostic or skeptic or rationalist or non-fundamentalist – then you don't have the big bag of God – therefore your projections have to go somewhere else. Which explains why the more secular, humanistic/left-wing/marxist cadres within society tend to be so virulently anti-corporate and anti- existing state." -- Continues...

"So the more religious [people] are, the more they will tend to be free-market and less afraid of corporations because corporations don't have the projection of sibling abuse... However, Satan and God has all the projections. In the same way, to some degree, it would explain why more religious people tend to be less statist because – in the modern world, the modern libertarian paradigm – they have God into which they place all of their parental projections and therefore they can look upon the state as a thing itself rather than a big bag of emotional projection. So [religious people] can criticize the state because they're not unconsciously criticizing their parents. But if you criticize God, they get very angry and offended because then you are criticizing their parents. If you say God is not virtuous, they hear: my parents are not virtuous on an unconscious level. But because they don't project that onto the state, they can criticize the state very heavily."

"All unprocessed trauma must find a route somewhere, and if it does not find it's route in the truth, then it will find its route in mythology: the mythology of nationalism, of racism, of collectivism, of religion, of superstition, and so on. If trauma is not processed it will find substitutes in mythology. If that is the case – and sibling abuse is the last great unprocessed trauma of society – then this theory is able to explain some interesting set of phenomenon that occur within the realm of libertarianism -to- marxism. -- So Satan is a stand-in for the elder sibling; God is a stand-in for the parent. Corporations are a stand-in for the elder sibling; the state is a stand-in for parents. If that is true then we would expect... that those who are more religious would tend to be less critical of corporations. Why? Because they have the big receptacle, the big black bag of Satan to project all of their sibling trauma into." -- Continues...

"The temptation is to blame the younger sibling as if everything is equal. In this way, the republicans blame the poor for being poor; blame the blacks for being in ghettos; blame women for making less money; and so on. And then the younger siblings say they need the state to protect them from rapacious corporations and polluters and so on – when, of course, the government produces the corporations and polices and regulates them already – so if corporations are doing evil and the government is far more powerful than the corporations and regulates the corporations, then clearly it is not the corporations that are at fault – it is the government that is at fault since it has all the power. But it's far easier to blame the elder siblings and excuse the parents than it is to place the blame for evil within the family where it properly belongs, which is with the parents."

"And we see this repeated over and over in human thought. So when things go bad for government, the statists blame the corporations or they blame the party in power – they can never blame the [state (the parents), or the] principle of coercion which is the foundation of statism. And when things go bad in the world, religious people can't blame God because that would be to question virtue of God and foundation of their propaganda. [So they] invent someone else to blame, and in religion it's all sibling blame. So the elder sibling is Satan and the younger sibling is humanity. Blame the victim is absolutely essential for destructive families and for statism and religion. -- And what about the elder siblings? Certain punitive forms of libertarianism or republicanism which blame the victim are the elder sibling's and/or parent's response to the vulnerability of the younger siblings when they are hurt, ([usually] as a result of the actions of the parent or elder sibling)." -- Continues...

"...given that infanticide was so common throughout history, children who displeased their parents would very often be abandoned or killed. This is why the taboo has remained so powerful into the modern world. Questioning the virtue of parents arouses live and death anxiety for a lot of people. When you have a fantasy of virtue in a situation of evil, the only way that you can maintain the fantasy of virtue is for there to be a stand-in which explains the evil. So in general, whenever you have an absolute power, a non-power, and an intermediate power; parents, younger siblings, elder siblings – the youngest sibling, in order to preserve the illusion of the virtue of the parents, is going to pretend that the evil he's experiencing is coming from the middle power, the elder sibling, and that he must appeal to the parent in order to protect himself... But the reality is that the parents create the abuses of the elder sibling by being abusive themselves. And this is why it doesn't work."

'The point of reciprocal exchange is to help those in need so that they will help you when you are in need. In a market exchange, the market price is charged whether or not the buyer is in need. As a result, our economic intuitions favor reciprocal exchange—market exchange is uncaring and cold-hearted toward people when they are in need! This is why so many people are unwilling to allow free markets in anything involving the poor and needy: it simply feels wrong to charge poor people for necessities. In such situations, market exchange runs against our altruistic feelings, which form the basis of reciprocal exchange. ...there are many more examples of folk economics ..we are a highly social species, and social organization has been a very important factor in our evolution—much of the brain is dedicated to dealing with the social environment. A free society cannot exist where folk economics runs rampant ...just as everyone is born ignorant of math, so everyone is born a folk economist.'

Comment: DB: 'The reason to trust markets more than government is simple. Markets, absent government interference, are ruled [by the] Invisible Hand of competition. Governments are not. In a competitive environment it is impossible to be dishonest over a long period of time because consumers will shift their patronage to a partner they can trust. Not so in a government setting. Competition is a far more trustworthy medium for reducing anti-social behavior than government, which is often itself corrupt and anti-social. Who watches the watchers? Ms. Brown's emphasis is so strongly on government solutions - in an era where public solutions increasing fail - that we wonder what the agenda is. Why not let the free-market decide on money instead of trying to re-manipulate government to make it work "better." As to what we suggest ... It is simple. Fight as hard as possible through education and other peaceful means to do away the insanity of regulatory democracy... We would suggest freedom'

'Ellen Brown, the Greenbacker, has posted a reply to me. It is addressed to me: an open letter. I do not intend to reply to her directly. I will address my comments to her victims: her readers. If you are interested in my responses, you can check [here] daily. I will respond by posting one article per day.'

'For two generations conservatives have been shouted down by the Left with this accusation: "Fascist!" Ellen Brown is now making this accusation plausible. Yet the great irony is this: Ellen Brown is a Leftist. There is nothing even remotely free market or conservative about The Web of Debt. It is a call for a Federally funded welfare state. She praises the New Deal. She praises John Maynard Keynes. She has only one objection to their recommended programs: governments borrowed money to fund them. She wants a welfare state that is funded entirely by paper money printed by Congress. She is about as conservative as Nancy Pelosi. How could her ideas be getting a hearing in Tea Party circles? The strategic problem is this: the Tea Party movement is filled with people who have no economic understanding. They cannot distinguish Ron Paul's opposition to the FED, based on the gold coin standard, from Ellen Brown's opposition, based on a fiat money standard. They are intellectually defenseless.'

'When one regards the kind of mindset emanating from Brussels – along with renewed talk about a muscular EU military and pan-European CIA-like spying operation – one can only shake one's head in disbelief. We would have to speculate at this point that the EU does not have a lot of popular support from many of the nation-states it purports to represent. The more its leaders rush to accumulate additional anti-democratic powers, the less credibility the whole centralizing experiment has in our view. We think the anti-"austerity" movement may continue to grow, even as winter settles on Europe. It provides a centralizing focus for a wider disenchantment with the EU. Those who believe that this movement is primarily being whipped up by PIGS's public unions may be underestimating what is actually occurring. The resentment may be broader and deeper than that. For once the Economist may have gotten it right.'

'...if you look more carefully at wealth redistribution you find that what the dispute is about isn't really whether wealth should be redistributed. That's because wealth is nearly always being redistributed. The tax-takers don't like us to have the choice about who will receive our wealth, to whom and for what it will be distributed and redistributed, that's what's at stake here. You and I aren't a good enough wealth-redistributor, they are. Exactly what justifies this belief on the wealth-redistributors' part is a mystery to me. Except it may just be the same as that of the bank robber, burglar, embezzler, and any other confiscator of other people's wealth. They want it and will take it if they can get away with it. At least bank-robbers and their ilk don't insult their victims by making the incredible claim that they are taking what isn't theirs because their use of it is superior to what their victims may have used the wealth for.'

Make-baby-baby-baby.

'...it should be noted that if no one had the right to acquire and control anything except his own body (a rule that would pass the formal universalization test), then we would all cease to exist, and the problem of the justification of normative statements simply would not exist. The existence of this problem is only possible because we are alive, and our existence is due to the fact that we do not, indeed cannot, accept a norm outlawing property in other scarce goods next to and in addition to that of one's physical body. Hence, the right to acquire such goods must be assumed to exist. Nobody could argue in favor of a property system defining borders of property in subjective, evaluative terms because simply to be able to say so presupposes that, contrary to what theory says, one must in fact be a physically independent unit saying it. -- There are popular attempts to define ['invasions'] of the value or psychic integrity of other people's property [= conservatism and socialism].'

'A short example of how to use a universal theory of ethics to prove the validity of property rights.' -- “It is impossible to argue against property without using property.”

'What is socialism? We cannot offer anything like a complete account here, but it begins with the idea that society’s resources should be directed to serving the needs of people, not the profit dictates of the few.' -- Spot the false dichotomy? How about the profit of the many? How about 'the people' direct themselves rather than be subject to your *shoulds*? And how are YOU separate from 'the people'? What are your *needs* in creating abstract categories called 'the people'? Engineering an exploitable ideological *resource* perhaps? Dear 2+2=5, Please learn to debate on facts rather than attempting flimsy rhetoric that a 5 year-old could poke a finger through. It's 2010. People are smart now and they have facebook accounts that prove—contrary to your OBVIOUS abstraction called 'the people'— that they are individuals and yet still quite capable of co-operating with each other voluntarily and in peace. Now back to your state-funded academies and... LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!

'These people lock the system in place while at the same time destabilizing it by imposing financial burden on the productive. Apparatchiks are also in place in "finance" much of which would be in bankruptcy reorganization were it not for government payouts. Most of these workers are clueless hulks of America's communist Fascist policy. We have a huge burden being placed on the few real sectors of the economy with local law enforcement, capital investment, and education, being gutted by the weight of a system stealing our freedom with a police state. We need to encourage our bright people to be constructive parts of society not toe sucking lackeys of those who have entrenched themselves in an insane psychopathic system of mealy mouthed boot lickers. Beria had it right that law and financial based capitalism would defeat itself in a psychotic-insane-prison-death-knell. We now have a leaderless nation with a growing secret police. The media has dominion over our minds and bodies.'

'Hayek saw through all the rhetorical tricks and gimmicks of the socialists of his day, one of which was the constantly repeated refrain that socialism and government "planning" was "inevitable"; therefore, it is futile to oppose it. Nor did he fall for the gimmick of wrapping totalitarian socialism in the mantle of the god of democracy. Government planning is inherently incompatible with both democracy and the rule of law in the long run, he explained... "The worst" always rise to the top of the political heap under a regime of government planning, Hayek explained, for they are the ones with the least qualms about brutalizing their fellow citizens and depriving them of their liberties. All of this can only be sustained by what Hayek called "The End of Truth," or the effects of massive government propaganda that demonizes the civil society, individualism, and the system of peaceful voluntary exchange and private property (capitalism), while glorifying all aspects of the state.'

'Is it a coincidence that the whole of the Western world is now speaking of austerity? After over 200 years of increasingly militant socialism and communism, public spending is no more. The speed with which socialist precepts are being abandoned is truly a spectacle to behold. In fact we are on record as stating that such a wholesale transmutation of Western society cannot be anything other than a promotion. The austerity that Cameron speaks of will prove a trap for Britain. One way or another it will not bring success or make Britain more prosperous. Somehow it will end up giving more power to the state while further denuding the private sector. People have been made to feel that the control of the state is theirs, but this is never so. The state is in the hands of the power elite and now the elite is attempting to further manipulate citizens under the guise of "austerity" and deflation. Yes, it is a promotion. ...making banks whole while bringing whole populations to heel.' -- Theft

'The intellectual wants the whole society to be a school writ large, to be like the environment where he did so well and was so well appreciated. The wordsmith intellectuals are successful within the formal, official social system of the schools, wherein the relevant rewards are distributed by the central authority of the teacher. The schools contain another informal social system within classrooms, hallways, and schoolyards, wherein rewards are distributed not by central direction but spontaneously at the pleasure and whim of schoolmates. Here the intellectuals do less well. It is not surprising, therefore, that distribution of goods and rewards via a centrally organized distributional mechanism later strikes intellectuals as more appropriate than the "anarchy and chaos" of the marketplace. For distribution in a centrally planned socialist society stands to distribution in a capitalist society as distribution by the teacher stands to distribution by the schoolyard and hallway.'

'First profligate nations are lent a lot of money by private sector banks. Then the nation becomes over-extended revenue-wise. Finally the IMF is called in to provide a "loan" that must be paid back. Continually, free-market oriented critics complain that the money being lent – if it is to be lent at all – ought to be going to the private sector itself. But if the loans went directly to the private sector without government strings, it might generate projects of sufficient success to repay the debt. This is the last thing that these banks and financial institutions actually want. They want the money to be dissipated so that they can call on the IMF to implement "austerity." From our point of view, as a free-market publication, the government should be out of the business of owning land, resources, utilities and even, for the most part, basic infrastructure. It is good for the Greek people to see how thoroughly incompetent their government really is.'

'...create a sick system. A sick system has four basic rules: #Rule 1: Keep them too busy to think. Thinking is dangerous. If people can stop and think about their situation logically, they might realize how crazy things are. #Rule 2: Keep them tired. Exhaustion is the perfect defense against any good thinking that might slip through. #Rule 3: Keep them emotionally involved. Enmesh your success with theirs. Keep everything on the edge. Make sure there's never quite enough money, or time, or goods, or status, or anything else people might want. Insufficiency makes sick systems self-perpetuating, because if there's never enough x to fix the system, and never enough time to think of a better solution, everyone has to work just to keep the system from collapsing. #Rule 4: Reward intermittently. -- Once you're out of the system, it makes no sense at all. None of the carrots they dangled before you mean anything, and you start to truly comprehend just how much stress you were under.'

Socialism. The denial of all evidence-based thinking. The denial of scientific method applied generally and to relationships. The denial of ethics. The denial that one day you'll discover that your 'friend' is no longer suitable and that you need to move on to find new friends and rely on your self-esteem to test your own hypothesis as to what makes a good friend and what does not. But no, instead, this: 'For many child-rearing experts [government-funded?], the ideal situation might well be that of Matthew and Margaret Guest, 12-year-old twins in suburban Atlanta, who almost always socialize in a pack. “I don’t think it’s particularly healthy for a child to rely on one friend,” said Jay Jacobs, [friendship coach]. “If something goes awry, it can be devastating. It also limits a child’s ability to explore other options in the world.”' -- No, it gives them the very *reason*, the rationale, the self-directed responsibility to explore other options on *their* terms. Leave them kids alone!

'Lynda Marvin, Jailer: "This is fabulous news! Are we going to distribute it to all Americans equally?"'

'The long term effects of the First World War - the fall of the Free West, and the darkening skies of tyranny...' -- The Killbot Class

'...the research team equivocated between morality and altruism. There are numerous moral systems, ethical positions, that have been advanced throughout human history and it is simply misleading to assume that being moral must necessarily mean being altruistic. Indeed, there is something quite misanthropic about such an assumption--why would it be commendable for people to work to benefit others while neglecting themselves? Who will then take care of them? They are more likely to understand what they need and want and so attending to these matters would probably be more efficient than imposing one's idea of what others need and want on these others. But let that go for now. What Bloom and Wynn present us in their findings calls to mind, once again, the quip that is associated with the poet W. H. Auden, namely, "We are here on earth to do good for others. What the others are here for, I don't know."'

'And now ... "austerity." The masses of Europe, having been promised a brighter and more prosperous future under the benevolent regime of the EU are faced with years, perhaps decades, of what amounts to institutionalized poverty in which all the bright promises of security, early retirements and lazy living will be stripped away. Only the wretched, mercantilist banks of Europe and America will win, if it come to this. And it was all so unnecessary – as are so many of the results of the crazed power elite agenda. Unleash the hounds of havoc; let chaos rein; do anything and everything to befuddle, bemuse and eventually bankrupt the masses in pursuit of some loony vision of global governance. Those who engineered the EU knew quite well, almost from the beginning, what they wrought. It is as dispiriting as it is predictable.'

'It all sounds so official, so complex and so ... necessary. But what is the reality? The reality is that what is being contemplated is printing money out of thin air to pay for Greek government profligacy. The Greeks have promised themselves many wonderful things that they now cannot pay for. And the EU is going to step in and buy Greek bonds with electronic money that has no intrinsic value. The EU, in our opinion, encouraged the socialist profligacy that has led to current account deficits. The leaders of the EU knew that the stability of the currency would inevitably create a temptation to leverage additional government spending, especially for Southern EU countries. This was supposed to create a crisis to lead to a more political union. But now the crisis has seemingly backfired. The patchwork currency-quilt is starting to unravel and the warm fuzzy feelings associated with being in bed with the EU along with it.'

'People complain about paying taxes yet they defend [the taxation/interest system]. This conflict of emotions is tantamount to the Stockholm Syndrome: Captives begin to identify with their captors initially as a defense mechanism out of fear of violence. Small acts of kindness (read: ‘government benefits’) by the captor are magnified, since finding perspective in a hostage situation is, by definition, impossible. Rescue attempts (by those of us who intend for the sheeple to WAKE UP!) are also regarded as threat since it is likely the captive would be injured during such attempts. Those who pay taxes are aggravating the problem; they believe they have no choice – they have been held hostage. Whether they pay the tax or not is not important in the grand scheme. What IS important is what is going on in their minds, which happens to be fear. There is no freedom, no aliveness, where there is fear. People actually lie awake at night in fear of how they are going to pay their ‘taxes’.'

'The myth of the zero-sum exchange continues and politicians and social agitators capitalize on it all the time. ...what we have here is the slow but fundamental transformation of a commercial system into a socialist one where profit is demeaned, treated as something evil, and where people must become servants to each other and may not earn a profit from the work they do for others. This isn't supposed to be something to be expected in an emergency—say when there's a flood or earthquake—but the way businesses are supposed to carry on routinely. We have here the basic idea that men and women aren't supposed to embark upon good deals through which they can prosper in their lives. No, they are supposed to be part of a huge organism in which everything is shared and no one is ever to be compensated for the work done for someone else. As if everyone were part of a bee hive. That's the central idea behind corporate social responsibility once clearly understood, as well as behind socialism.'

'...the entrance of the Greeks into the EU, and the largess that flowed as a result, did not reach the pockets of the average Greek. In fact, the EU exercise was likely one of legalized bribery. Money that was given to the EU to supposedly close budget gaps went to furnish numerous unnecessary private projects. The money was wasted, in a sense, as the projects weren't completed and wouldn't have helped generate a profit if they had been. The EU leaders providing the money knew this. But they didn't care so long as Greece joined the union. Thus it was that the money cynically provided by EU's socialist leaders went into the pockets of the Greek elite that was in charge of the EU transition. And now this same elite, doubtless, is negotiating the Greek posture as regards the financial streamlining that must take place. If we can figure out what actually occurred, we don't think that it is hard for the average Greek to do so.'

'Writing that nation-states make decisions, rather than individuals, is a mild form of brainwashing in our opinion. One soon gets the idea that the nation-states represents its people, and that those at the top of the state are entitled to speak – and make decisions – for everyone else. Thus it is that artificial geographical regions somehow become anthropomorphicized. The money that Greece spent was money used by the political class for its own benefits and purposes. It's highly doubtful from our point of view that the average Greek (not in a labor union, anyway) benefited from all this getting and spending. Nonetheless, it is the average Greek who will suffer the consequences of the elite's use of the fiat money system for its own purposes. In fact, a central banking oriented fiat money system is always unfair this way. Those closest to the monetary system benefit inordinately from it. Those furthest away end up footing the bill.'

'The reality of the consequences of profligate debt accumulation are now evident, and even the media are facing the reality of the tough choices. The electorates no longer have an excuse—the reality of the dire situation is now being placed in front of them. In the case of the UK, it is time they demanded of their politicians real honesty over what they plan to do. If not, they are by default culpable. The UK is lucky in this respect, having an election at the very moment that the light of reality is shining on the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility. They have a moment, brief as it is, to demand a change, and demand reform. For other countries it is up to the third estate—the press—to wake up and pressure for reform. They need to shift attitudes, to create a groundswell of opinion that rejects the buy now pay later profligacy, and takes the lesser pain of reform now. It is time to pressure governments to tell the truth, and accept that they can not borrow and spend forever.'

'So it's all about labor costs? All of this? The boom, the bust, taxes, healthcare reform? Dell used to use prison labor, but stopped in 2003 because it found cheaper labor elsewhere... As throughout history, from slavery to outsourcing to the underground economy, it's all about cheap labor. And you know what? As long as you can afford your MacBook Pro, you're not going to do anything about it. Oh, you'll complain that Bush lied, for sure, but a ten hour battery means you've got plenty of porn time. BUT IF THEY PURPOSELY LET THE MARKET CRASH, THEY'RE SINKING 401(K)S -- THAT MEANS THEY WILL INEVITABLY HAVE TO INCREASE SOCIAL SECURITY. ISN'T THAT THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY WANT? That's the scam, yo. Like the drug dealer on the first encounter, once you're hooked, once you're reliant on the government for healthcare, and social security, and everything, you'll never dare revolt. They own you forever. Sure, you'll post idiotic rants on blogs, but do you think they care about that?'

'Socialism was never meant to be a system to 'help the people'. It is, from its inception, a system of mass management of populations, on behalf of a self-appointed governing class. -- The Fabian method [is used to take over] affluent nations with a tradition of personal independence and wealth. These nations would not accept Leninist revolution, so they would have to be brought down through a different method: institutional stealth and gradualism. Incremental change, on a step-by-step basis. As Fabian socialist HG Wells said, through incrementalism, you could slowly transform a free-market society into a communist one, during the span of decades, and in the end people would still call it free-market, or 'capitalist' -- even though it would be a regimented system, entirely controlled by the state corporate intelligentsia. This, of course, is the slow transformation system under which we have been living for decades now, in the Americas and Europe.'

'Socialism was never meant to be a system to 'help the people'. It is, from its inception, a system of mass management of populations, on behalf of a self-appointed governing class. -- The Fabian method [is used to take over] affluent nations with a tradition of personal independence and wealth. These nations would not accept Leninist revolution, so they would have to be brought down through a different method: institutional stealth and gradualism. Incremental change, on a step-by-step basis. As Fabian socialist HG Wells said, through incrementalism, you could slowly transform a free-market society into a communist one, during the span of decades, and in the end people would still call it free-market, or 'capitalist' -- even though it would be a regimented system, entirely controlled by the state corporate intelligentsia. This, of course, is the slow transformation system under which we have been living for decades now, in the Americas and Europe.' -- http://youtu.be/dZAgrwtz1ms

'Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends. -- Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. [O]nce legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient.' -- What profit a man...?

'When one looks back at the decline and fall of the Anglo-American axis, one may be struck not by how precipitous it was, though it happened quickly, but by its apparent deliberateness. We would argue that there is a power elite both in the US and Europe that in fact may be seeking to undermine foundational elements of civil society in order to further merge nation-states in pursuit of world government. -- The next decade should be an especially important and interesting one. The two driving forces of the modern West, in our view, are elite programs to further centralize Western governance and the Internet, which provides a platform for those that support a decentralization of power... No one can say for sure how this titanic battle will turn out. But it has surely been joined, and never in recent history have the dividing lines been so obvious... Investors – and Western citizens in general – ignore the reality of this massive, and partially subterranean conflict at their own peril.'

'...the Government ripped you off! the government stole YOUR money and gave it to wall street!!!' -- POINTING FINGER IS POINTING AT GOVERNMENT

'#The immorality of national debt: A strange religion has come to dominate British life in the post-war era. It teaches that the values of our forebears are outmoded and their achievements of no great significance. It preaches that wealth is no longer created through man's ingenuity and endeavour, but something bestowed upon the grateful congregation by a divine elite. This religion is government, its ministers are politicians and its gospel is debt. -- Politicians have convinced us that everyone has a right to comfort and happiness and that government has moral duty to provide it. They believe that wealth and liberation come in the form of paper or electronic money and that distributing limitless amounts of this commodity is a cure for all social and economic ills. Only by spending this confiscated or borrowed money is a person truly moral. Anyone who dares to question this twisted faith is demonised [and] branded inhumane for supporting "savage cuts to vital public services."'

'The crisis has been educational in so many ways. It has teased out the real power-positions of many European players. It has shown that France has a strong though not overwhelming voice in the EU experiment. Brussels has power, but not it seems the final word. Germany is a key player, yet its own citizens are ambivalent about its newfound kingdom. The EU-zone has been good to Germany, increasing the markets for its efficient industries and small- to medium-sized companies. But Germany dithers about Greece nonetheless, as it should. The German leadership may be ambitious for pan-socialism, but the German industrial sector obviously is not so hot on that failing ideology. ...the EU is a profoundly anti-democratic invention, the founding principles of which advocate that basic human rights are the bailiwick of the state—to be given and taken away at will. How anyone can support a system that advocates that basics of human survival can be disposed of this way is beyond us.'

'Those who don't want unlimited amounts of South American and Mexican workers flooding the US—and gaining the privileges of citizenship in the process—are often characterized by the opposition as racist. South American citizens are essentially freedom loving and entrepreneurial, but many have grown up under authoritarian governments. What this means is that the US is to be continually flooded by hard working South Americans who have had little exposure to free-market thinking. Such individuals shall in some cases tend to favor a strong central government—whether it be in their own country or America. It is this sentiment that mainstream leaders (of both parties) are counting on. [Assuming a fully privatized society, workers] would either find gainful employment or go back home. This is how the private market would regulate immigration. It is the politicization of immigration and distortive factors such as welfarism—and a general public government involvement—that causes problems.'

'Whilst the mainstream economists make their projections of future GDP growth, what is notably absent from such projections is exactly where, or what sector, might conceivably produce such growth. Apparently, growth will just happen, because it just must. It might be noted that I am not talking about the so-called 'growth' which results from massive government borrowing, which is really just a growth in debt. -- The cost of pensions and health care are, due to demographic factors, and the rising cost of health care, about to explode. At this very moment in time, governments should not be running deficits, but running surpluses to fund these future costs. ...politicians are living in a world of fantasy, and the bond markets have recognised this. Both Labour and the Conservatives are just not telling the truth - that there must be real austerity, and that the UK is on the edge of a precipice.'

'I would suggest that the pensions/social security system — the system of intergenerational transfers in which the young get signed up by their elders, often before they are born — not only resembles but actually is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme, the biggest scam ever invented. And to you young people here, I am sorry to say, if you want to see who the suckers of this Ponzi scheme are, just look in the mirror. So the system must inevitably collapse. The younger you are, the more you stand to lose. And the longer the scam goes on, the more it will cost you. There is no law of nature that says you have to honor checks that other people write at your expense. You are not slaves — you are slaves only if you choose to submit to slavery. You can repudiate those checks. Do you want a life of toil and slavery, followed by ultimate destitution, or do you want to stand up for yourselves and fight for the chance of a decent life? It's your choice.'

'Bottom line, with Americans paying more and more for health care, there will be increased pressure to rein in illegal aliens and to make sure that immigrants not in the US legally are not taking advantage of US health care. And because enforcement is – and will be – impossible ... [there] will be pressure to make illegal immigrants "legal" via some sort of guest worker or citizenship program. Of course, one might think that such predictions are a leap of faith – and that perhaps the illegal immigration from Mexico may become less of an issue over time. But ... really? It's been going on for decades. And finally, [the "drug war" is] destabilizing a whole country, and sending even more Mexicans across the border. -- The idea, according to [some] reports, is to divide the world into currency blocs to make central banks even more powerful. The EU is already one such bloc and Canada, Mexico and the United States are supposedly to be the foundation of another.'

'Humans need a comfortable reality to operate in, so they find an ideology to use as the basis for the way they look at the world. The Big Government [ideology] sells the idea that we can reach paradise as long as we can get people to behave according to “the correct way” thinking. But if you look at the people making these claims they’re often perfect examples of why human beings are flawed. They cling to their [ideology] because it gives them hope that they can get to heaven by playing a game rather than paying their dues. Understand that their followers are not the enemy. They’ve been fooled. [M]any of them are just people who think—or who have been brainwashed into thinking—that they’re on the right side of history. They think they’re trying to make the world a better place and that [constitutionalist?] conservatives and libertarians are trying to stop human progress. They haven’t figured out that they’re actually helping the side that’s against human progress and freedom.'

'The Frankfurt School developed an approach to overthrowing Western Civilization so it could be replaced by Marxist thought. "Critical Theory" sought to destroy western culture by attacking every aspect of it and dividing everyone, setting them on each other so there is no unity. Big Government statists achieve consent by propaganda designed to anger their followers. They encourage everyone to be upset about whatever the successful are doing. They have to demonize whoever doesn’t follow their script. This is why you see so many corporations and rich people taking the progressive line. They don’t want to be turned into an enemy. [Progressives] train others to follow them. To be mindless minions marching to the beat of their drums. Their followers are all so angry because they’re constantly being told to hate the opposition. To fear them. To see them as evil and stupid, so you will never seek to understand them. There is nothing “liberal” about progressives. They are illiberal.'

'Many American elites were enamored of the control that a Marxist government promised. It meant mastery over every aspect of society. In the minds of these elites, it could be used to create a utopia of their own devising. These people called themselves Progressives. -- After the defeat of the Fascists in Europe, America became a world super-power. And in that time, the wealth of this country was turned against the people in a slow process of wearing us down through endless guilt and propaganda. The income tax has been used to bribe citizens with their own money, and to pit Americans against each other in the name of “class.” The statists funded their excessive government expansion using the people’s money. The American statists, who had dropped the progressive name and erroneously referred to themselves as “liberals,” pushed for more statism. This lead to even greater expansion of the Federal bureaucracy and the erosion of the freedoms Americans once took for granted.'

'Communist governments rejected religion and tried to replace it with their political ideology. But [communism] lacks the moral core that religion provides. It tries to supplant [morals] with laws. [W]here Socialism and Communism have been attempted, more people died due to the vagaries of its leaders and their policies than all the wars of the 20th century combined. While communism has been largely discredited, the lovers of socialism keep trying to sell it under different [“progressive”] guises, claiming it’s never worked because “it hasn’t been done right yet." Socialism provides a way for the state to control all the resources and production while appearing benign. By providing “benefits” to the people, they were tricked into thinking they were “sharing the wealth.” In truth, the leaders lived in wealth and excess while the rest were forced into a narrow kind of poverty of which there was no escape unless you “joined the party” and became part of the corrupt political class.'

'It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists. Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters. -- First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system...' -- !!!

'"What's going to happen to the poor when the system runs out of money?" -- Some comments, questions and criticisms I received for my video on how to talk to people about socialized medicine.'

'We never understood why countries would so easily give up their own currencies to begin with, because leaders were giving away a portion of the ability to control national destiny. But of late the rationale has become clear. The countries participating in the euro were basically arbitraging the great German industrial machine. Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc., used the euro's stability and low lending rates to go on a great spending spree. Politicians had received a blank check, and were penciling in large sums to buy social peace. The restive nature of European socialism was soothed by gobs of money. Strikes became pretty much a thing of the past. Harmony reigned, as much as it ever could. But nothing is free forever.'

"This is a big fucking deal!" This is serious socialist bidniz!