'#7. Critics say that LVT redistributes wealth from landowners, but there is nothing morally wrong with an inequality in wealth and income. But when government provides public goods paid for by taxes other than on land, this pumps up rent and land value, redistributing wealth from workers to landowners. And for land value provided by nature, geoist ethics say that human equality requires an equal benefit from natural resources. Inequality in market wages respects equal self-ownership, while an unequal benefit from the natural heritage does violate our creation as moral equals. -- #9. Critics of LVT claim that much of wages is due to luck, connections, and talents, so a portion is wages is unearned. But as Henry George wrote, justice is the end, taxation only the means. It is just for the benefits of natural resource to be shared, and for landowners to pay back the rental generated by public goods. Self-ownership is also just, even if some have greater wealth due to luck. Nobody is coercively harmed if one person has more talent than others. If others own your luck, you become a slave to them, violating self-ownership. -- #14. Socialist critics claim that LVT leaves intact capital inequalities. But much of the historical inequality of wealth has come from land tenure. Over time, inherited wealth other than land dissipates or gets donated to charity. With good education and equal access to natural opportunities, inequalities in financial assets are not unjust so long as there is no force or fraud.'

"To women, male agency is an awesome thing, but only when it serves female drives, needs, and motivations. When it doesn't, it's either a potential danger to women, or it's just a waste of time and energy that those men could be spending looking after women. All through history, the woman who wasn't bending a man or society to her will through the tyranny of her hypoagency, that was the woman whose babies weren't born, or didn't live very long. And a man with power that couldn't be channeled or harnessed or rendered harmless by female manipulation, was a 'waste of space', or a man who could destroy her. Evolution selected for hypoagency in women."

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.'

Cool zombie flick, bro!

"They suspended mark-to-market; they kicked everything under the rug; what they couldn't kick under the rug they stuffed in the can, then kicked that down the road, and they basically acted like it didn't exist." -- See no evil...

"People steal because their childhood was stolen from them."

'Repeat after me everyone - children are not to be used as hostages, children are not to be used as hostages...'

"People are not evil if they don't understand the non-aggression principle... People are in a state of nature, they're in a state of neutrality, they're in a state of propagandized infancy. They do not have moral responsibility until they've come across better information... This is why people are so hostile, sometimes, to philosophical arguments: because it creates an ethical choice in them that they did not have before."

'Megaupload is just the latest corporation to feel the brutality of early 21st century state-run justice. The point, of course, (in our view) is not actually to provide “justice” so much as to make people fearful of using the Internet and sharing information that may someday be deemed “criminal.” In fact, copyright laws were developed by royalty to counteract the spread of information (in books) after the invention of the Gutenberg Press. The same tactics that applied then are being applied now. But we have long argued that as entrenched as the dominant social theme is, it will come under increasing scrutiny as what we call the Internet Reformation proceeds. Just as the state’s other memes are coming under question – the fear-based promotions that frighten middle classes into giving wealth and power to global repositories – so the “state-justice” meme shall come under fire, sooner or later. In fact, we would argue the battle has already been joined on this issue of copyright infringement. We’ve also enunciated a practical perspective that we believe would resolve the issue in a pertinent and appropriate way. Let those who are OFFENDED by copyright infringement enforce their copyright themselves! Let them use their OWN assets to enforce their position.'

"If you get rid of the government, then the costs of violence are imposed directly upon the person who wants to use the violence." - "Intellectualism is a defence against inflicted falsehoods as a child." - "People get that morality has been used to control them as children, and as soon as they try to treat morality as morality and make it universal to their society as a whole, they're attacked as immoral, as uncaring, as brutish and wrong... It's crazy. People's brains are fried... they have been crippled, mentally." -- How many fingers, Winston?

'...there have been no substantial retrenchments of the US government, and the situation is getting worse, on a hyperbolic curve. Trends in motion tend to stay in motion until a genuine crisis changes them, and this trend has been gaining momentum for over a century. The fact is that when a government collapses, especially when the government is providing all the things the US government does today, people want somebody to fix it; they want their goodies back. It's well known that over 50% of the US population are net recipients of state largess. And the degree of state support and involvement in the US is far, far greater than it was in France, Russia or Germany. After a period of chaos, it's always the people who are most political, who have the most rabid statist ideas who get the public's attention and rise to the top. It seems highly likely that the US will get a savior, someone full of bravado, who assures the booboisie that he can straighten things out – if he is given sufficient power. Perhaps it will be an arrogant windbag like Gingrich, perhaps some general. The government won't wither away; it will reassert itself. I don't see any way around it, actually. We are already moving into a police state...' -- There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed.

'The political divide between the champions of the public sector and the private sector misses the point; the key divide is between those who support the monopolistic tendencies of both capitalism and government, and those who support the competitive effects of markets. As Adam Smith, who championed the market but not capitalism, put it: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” The market is where these conspiracies get exposed. To win in it, you don’t lobby, you innovate. Wherever free markets have been even tentatively tried, from Ancient Greece to modern Hong Kong, they have produced not just rising living standards, but net moves towards peace, tolerance, freedom and equality. Capitalism represents the interests of the rich, whereas the market represents the interests of the poor. Let’s hear it for the market as the antidote to capitalism.'

'If one believes that land can be owned like any resource, then men can be owned and that makes slavery acceptable. On the same principle it would even be acceptable to own all the oxygen on the planet if some means could be found to enclose it by extracting it all. We in the Campaign are realistic and accept that we are where we are and have to move forward. Nobody here is suggesting that land titles should be taken away from their owners or that land should be nationalised. But the old injustice continues as land value is something that is continuously sustained and re-created by the presence and activities of the community today. There is an ongoing theft as this value is privately appropriated. Our case is that the stealing of this ongoing wealth stream should stop, through collection of the rental value of and its use as the main source of public revenue. This would make it possible to get rid of that other institutional theft, the taxation of human labour and its products.'

'Bearing in mind that the State is the organization of the political means - that its primary intention is to enable the economic exploitation of one class by another - we see that it has always acted on the principle already cited, that expropriation must precede exploitation. There is no other way to make the political means effective. The first postulate of fundamental economics is that man is a land-animal, deriving his subsistence wholly from the land. His entire wealth is produced by the application of labour and capital to land; no form of wealth known to man can be produced in any other way. Hence, if his free access to land be shut off by legal predmption, he can apply his labour and capital only with the land-holder’s consent, and on the landholder’s terms; in other words, it is at this point, and this point only, that exploitation becomes practicable. Therefore the first concern of the State must be invariably, as we find it invariably is, with its policy of land-tenure.'

'The news of the North Korea's leader death has put the 24-million population on the verge of insanity, hyped up by unceasing TV broadcast of mass mourning throughout the country. ­North Korea's national flag is flying at half-mast today on every flagpole in the country.' -- I see dead people.

"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."

"A century ago a free market meant an economy free of rentiers, free of unearned income, free of landlords, and free of bankers."

'The idea is that a technocracy of the elite can present candidates who are the most "competent" at administration. The corollary to this, of course, is that one must accept EVERY FACET of the CURRENT system to accept that one is voting purely for competence. In other words, if people do not like the current corporatist/authoritarian/totalitarian/militarized state that is being constructed around them, they're simply plumb out of luck. That's because the candidates on this "best of all worlds" won't be running on how to CHANGE what's going on – only on how to administer it BETTER. The idea, of course, is to ensure that any discussion of the FAILURES of government ends up providing an anodyne – that is a solution that INCLUDES MORE government. In other words, government is a terrible problem and the only solution is to increase it and make it better and more responsive – and larger and larger. The absurd end result of such a point of view is an all-encompassing government stretching around the world with ever-vaster resources. The additional resources will be needed to police government itself. In other words, as the corruption grows, so the resources of government must grow.' -- Pied pipers are piping.

No such thing as a free government. <-- Pointing Finger is Pointing

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

'Nature strives to keep us sane, society tries to make us mad.' -- In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four. (George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four)

'Arguments, expert opinion and data against the myth of mental illness.' -- Take four red capsules. In 10 minutes, take two more. Help is on the way.

"Everyone can see this massive bulge of baby boomers is going into retirement... you've got these budding, newly-hatched, wrinkled vampires about to feast upon the jugular of the young, and they're just going to swarm them..." -- "Governments have no money. Repeat after me: Governments have no money: They steal through taxation, they borrow through debt, and they counterfeit through monopoly control of currency."

'Oh, wow, a Greek unity government. Unity. A less polite term would be "communism" in our view – for we and thee, not of course for the top Greek elites. Communism. Sure. Or close to it ... The state runs most of Greece now one way or another. And a politburo runs the state. A "unity government." Hah! This is a long held dream of the elites as they struggle to move this woeful, recalcitrant world toward global governance. The idea is to do away with messy policy questions over the STRUCTURE of government. In fact, the idea is to ensure, via such unity governments, that everyone is on board with the basics. Simple really. The elites run the government and the government runs the corporations and the corporations and government jointly run everything else. Way up at the top, the REAL power resides, with a handful of elite families and associates that own the corporations and secretly control the government. The Greeks. They've been rioting for six months and what do they get? A government that will do exactly the opposite of what they want.' -- Some dare call it communism

'... "government invented the Internet" is a power elite subdominant social theme of sorts. This is the way government/military-industrial propagandists always operate. What did DARPA actually do? Long ago, its technologists decided that they needed a communication device to link America's military-industrial complex together so as to be able to build more efficient weapons of mass destruction. This duly took place and the Pentagon like a malevolent Queen Bee sat in the middle of the entrenched nervous system of worker-bee universities, specialized libraries and think tanks all plotting new ways to kill people. But then, as we have related many times before, the "two Steves" came along in the 1970s and, working in a garage, helped invent and popularize the personal PC. Many, many years later, Bill Gates woke up and wrote his famous memo saying the Internet was indeed a Serious Thing. That's because, unbeknownst to DARPA, their weaponized network had been overtaken by the Hayekian Spontaneous Organization of the free market. Millions had connected to DARPA's tiny network of putative mass destruction and turned it into something else entirely. The Age of the Internet Reformation had begun.'

'Revolutions are dangerous and unpredictable beasts, and for a population to enter into one without fully understanding what is at stake is much like handing a loaded 45 automatic to a toddler.' -- What have you bought into; what will it cost to buy you out?

'"I know firsthand about welfare and welfare dependency because of my own life, living seven years in and out," says Star Parker, founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE).' -- "The very people who want a 'war of poverty' set up minimum wage laws that are keeping people from being able to work." -- That which is not seen.

"Portugal, Spain, Italy, and hush-hush, France – all of these countries are dysfunctionally mismanaged economies – 'managed' being the mismanaged part of the whole equation because you cannot manage an economy, only a free market can govern itself... -- I believe the Greeks will be forced into accepting whatever austerity measures or any bailout packages that are dropped into their laps via Brussels and the G20."

"The free-market is predicated upon win-win negotiations." -- "Is government inherently evil? 'Government' is just one category of the initiation of force. The initiation of force is evil." -- "It's a logical fallacy [Post hoc ergo propter hoc] to say that because the government does it, if the government doesn't do it, it won't get done." -- "Saying you give money to the IRS is like saying you make love to your rapist. It's a contradiction in terms. It's like saying you're being charitable to the man who is robbing you." -- "Representatives are not accountable to voters. Do you have a contract with your political representative?" -- "You don't need a government for people to get together and make decisions." -- "If you live in a world of words you can manipulate your fantasies in any way you want. The Matrix is language. 'Government should be held accountable for its actions.' An imaginary entity should be held accountable in some imaginary, undescribed way for the actions which itself as an imaginary entity it can't even take since the 'government' doesn't exist and cannot act."

'Corporations have nothing to do with the free market.' -- "No company can afford to pay for its own army to protect a monopoly, so it relies on the State's power of taxation..."

'Admitting they had "absolutely no idea what the fuck [they were] doing," millions of Americans immediately ceased trying to manage the country's large-scale, ongoing disasters and pleaded with U.S. scientists, economists, educators, philosophers, and inventors to intervene and make things better again. According to Beltway insiders, the phenomenon has spread to the highest levels of the U.S. government, with hundreds of lawmakers crumpling up all bills currently under debate and claiming that pervasive problems related to unemployment, a crumbling infrastructure, and energy crises should probably be left to people who know some things about that stuff.'

'It took 150 years to blow up the banking sector – a brief history of a slow detonation.' -- Pointing finger is pointing at "government"

'As Baby Boomers are discovering now, it was all something of a dream. In fact, here at DB we refer to the 20th century these days as a "dreamtime." It was a century when what we call "directed history" was in its heyday. The elites entirely controlled the media and could relate whatever stories they chose. The fantasy of stock market wealth was just that – a fantasy – for most people. Yet no dominant social theme was much more successful than the investment meme. In the 20th century and even today the Anglosphere elites continue to push the idea of "investing." The buy-in of the middle class means a psychological endorsement of the world as it is, including central banking and fiat money. it is all becoming increasingly evident in the 21st century: the manipulations, the control, the larger elite agenda. Many white-collar jobs are make-work and a modern, "investment-enabled" retirement tends to work only in the "up" part of the business cycle when fiat money is in demand. This extended down-cycle is going to be an extended and brutal one because of all the past re-stimulations of the world's economy.'

'As of 2011, there are 1.4 m people in US gangs. That's 40% higher than 2009 (FBI: 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment). Why the rapid growth? Lots of little factors, but the big driver: 17% unemployment (with treble that in areas where gangs are prevalent) and the growing illegitimacy of the current power structures. With the ongoing deterioration of the US system, young people are going to increasingly opt to give their primary loyalty to organizations that will take care of them. More interestingly than simple gang growth/spread, is the increasing presence of gang members in the military (primarily the Army) and the transfer of combat skills gained in Iraq/Afghanistan to the street. The US, currently running a $1.5 trillion a year deficit with the spectre of HUGE cuts in the military (reduction in force) as a certainty, will dump hundreds of thousands of combat vets onto the street w/o an economy able to absorb them.'

'The 1% do not generate any wealth of their own. Everything they have they get by taking from others under the cover of law. They live at our expense. Without us, the State as an institution would die. The State is the only institution in society that is permitted by law to use aggressive force against person and property. The State is the institution that essentially redefines criminal wrongdoing to make itself exempt from the law that governs everyone else. It is the same with every tax, every regulation, every mandate, and every single word of the federal code. It all represents coercion. The State is everybody's enemy. Why don't the protesters get this? Because they are victims of propaganda by the State, doled out in public school, that attempts to blame all human suffering on private parties and free enterprise. They do not comprehend that the real enemy is the institution that brainwashes them to think the way they do. They are right that society is rife with conflicts, and that the contest is wildly lopsided. It is indeed the 99% vs. the 1%. They're just wrong about the identity of the enemy.'

'On your territory, only you are permitted to produce money. But that is not sufficient. Because as long as money is a regular good that must be expensively produced, there is nothing in it for you except expenses. More importantly, then, you must use your monopoly position in order to lower the production cost and the quality of money as close as possible to zero. Instead of costly quality money such as gold or silver, you must see to it that worthless pieces of paper that can be produced at practically zero cost will become money. Because you can create paper money out of thin air, you can also create credit out of thin air. In fact, because you can create credit out of nothing (without any savings on your part), you can offer loans at cheaper rates than anyone else, even at an interest rate as low as zero (or even at a negative rate). With this ability, not only is your former dependency on banks and the banking industry eliminated; you can, moreover, make banks dependent on you, and you can forge a permanent alliance and complicity between banks and state. You don't even have to become involved in the business of investing the credit yourself. That task, and the risk involved in it, you can safely leave to commercial banks. What you, your central bank, need to do is only this: You create credit out of thin air and then loan this money, at below-market interest rates, to commercial banks. Instead of you paying interest to banks, banks now pay interest to you. And the banks in turn loan out your newly created easy credit to their business friends at somewhat higher but still submarket interest rates (to earn from the interest differential). In addition, to make the banks especially keen on working with you, you may permit the banks to create a certain amount of their own new credit (of checkbook money) in addition and on top of the credit that you have created (fractional-reserve banking).'

Murderers murdering murderers

'In the 20th century, historical evidence produced by the Internet increasingly shows that the Anglosphere elites used countries like Russia and Germany as laboratories to try out different methodologies of social control. In fact, when the real history of the 21st century comes to be codified (and it will be) the narrative will likely show that every aspect of Western society (especially) was focused on the elite goal of a new world order. Everything – absolutely everything – was focused on this goal. Money was securitized and central banks created to appropriate industrial wealth and middle-class power; sexual mores were exploded and politicized to destroy the family unit; public schools were greatly expanded to indoctrinate children with statist nostrums; woman's lib was introduced to assure women it was OK to work – and to leave their children in the care of the state; history itself was perverted and realigned according to the false "great-man model. Today, we think we see dimly yet another realignment of the elite's dominant social themes. The new ones, as we have noted, will focus on global government – and on making that kind of government work better through "transparency," direct democracy and a political infrastructure emphasizing "green communalism."'

'The polls show a vast lack of even a modicum of confidence in political leadership, the failures of which are all around us. The longer the depression persists, the more the rebellious spirit grows, and it is not limited to the Wall Street protests. Poverty is growing, incomes are falling, business is being squeezed at every turn, and unemployment is stuck at intolerably high levels. People are angry as never before, and neither political party comes close to offering answers. The State as we’ve known it – and that includes its political parties and its redistributionary, military, regulatory, and money-creating bureaucracies – just can’t get it together. It’s as true now as it has been for some twenty years: the Nation State is in precipitous decline. Once imbued with grandeur and majesty, personified by its Superman powers to accomplish amazing global feats, it is now a wreck and out of ideas. It doesn’t seem that way because the State is more in-your-face than it has been in all of American history. The mask of the State is off. And it has been off for such a long time that we can hardly remember what it looked like when it was on. Fascism, like socialism, cannot achieve its aims. So there is a way in which it makes sense to speak of a stage of history: We are in the stage of late fascism. The grandeur is gone, and all we are left with is a gun pointed at our heads.'

"...it's very easy for people to look at society as a whole as a mirror of the family, with the government as mum and dad, and with corporations or bosses as elder siblings, who have significant influence but no direct kind of power in the way that parents do. If we don't know how our own family experience has shaped our beliefs then we really are susceptible to these kinds of ideologies." http://youtu.be/KoGvVxh0iP8

"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'."

'... In fact, there is no such thing as "global justice." There is no such things as a "human rights violation." But this dominant social theme is being pounded home by the elites who seek a one-world future and need global justice to accompany it. Human rights violations are an especially egregious meme. It is part of the magic trick performed by the elites in which important personal issues are to be embraced by impersonal concepts such as "countries" and "corporations," etc. The idea is always to make the specific generic and then to provide a globalist solution applied by internationalist structures controlled by this same elite. State justice – the current public paradigm – is unfortunately inequitable in every way. The state makes the rules, passes the laws, pays for the policing to enforce the laws, the lawyers who prosecute them, the courtroom that houses the judicial process and the penitentiaries that house the unfortunate victims of this monopoly of force.'

'The reality of corporations, the abuses of history, and how to truly break free of propaganda.' -- “We all see society through the matrix called ‘the family’. Mummy is a Democrat and Daddy is a Republican. But where do ‘corporations’ fit into this matrix? ... ”

'To conflate Wall Street – as an industry, anyway – with central banking is simply wrong. One is an evolution of the free market. The other hides behind it. Put central banking out of business and the worst excesses of Wall Street will almost immediately become a thing of the past. Put Wall Street out of business and central bankers will reconstitute over the weekend. Money Power lies with central banks, run by the Anglosphere power elite. These elites are quite prepared to sacrifice Wall Street. They WANT to regulate the private sector. Regulate it until it is cold as a corpse so that they can re-animate as they choose. The more laws there are, the better they do. The process is called mercantilism. The powers-that-be CONTROL governments. Pass a law and you are only adding to their arsenal. In fact, the leaders of Occupy Wall Street are DELIBERATELY turning the movement into a populist protest that looks to government for changes that will make societies work better. It is evident and obvious. Who knows who they work for – but evidently they are not who and what they say they are. We wish we were wrong.'

#OccupyTheFamily

'It sounds like the enemy is Wall Street, but observe that the slogan doesn't point to an enemy, it defines the group. The slogan is a twist on an old fascist standby: select a minority enemy, and create an impression of opposing unanimity. Once done, the leaders of the group have the powerbase to do what they want, making it impossible for anyone in the rest of the 98% to disavow this madness. When it all goes down you will be too terrified, or too busy, to dissent. -- Of course Wall Street has excessive profits, but just as your life has been an inflated delusion of easy credit, so has theirs; yes, they have received an obscene share of that fake money, and ten-twenty years ago maybe you could have redistributed that fake money, but that ship has sailed. The moment you take it away from them it ceases to exist, poof, it's gone. Double the taxes, triple the taxes, it makes no difference, it's over. The only way out is a massive tax on wealth; cold fusion; a war; a new media; or inflation. Inflation has the side benefit of pushing you into a higher tax bracket and we'll all get to see what a $1000 bill looks like. "We are the 99%." Stop it. There is a 1%, fighting another 1%, and while both of those megalomaniancs dominate the media coverage the other 98% has no recourse, no representation, no allies, and no savings.'

What's the alternative media's verdict? Occupy Wall Street has been fomented with organizational elements of the US State Department and its AYM arm, abetted no doubt by the FBI, CIA and other Intel organizations. Funding nominally is being provided via Adbusters magazine, which gets its funding through Soros-managed entities among others and its direct democracy approach from pseudo anarchist David Graeber. The movement, ultimately, will refract numerous memes set up by the power elite in its pursuit of global governance. It is apparently designed as a kind of Trojan Horse to get as many young Western adults as possible involved with it. This sheds illumination on the overseas "youth movements" as well, which provide a precedent for Occupy Wall Street, which in its planned expansion may be constitute a final surge toward a one-world state. This cannot be the last word, however. The elites will drive home their narrative via the mainstream media and if anyone questions the craziness of a "leaderless" worldwide movement, the Washington Post is there with its rebuttal. The article seeks to make a case for the evolution of anarchism as methodology of positive change. This is weird because previously the Anglosphere elites have always used anarchism within a negative context. But not now.'

'Many are eager to transfer the system of money printing from central banks like the Federal Reserve to PUBLIC central banks that would be under the control of federal and state officials. For this reason the PRIVATE nature of central banking is often emphasized, though the Fed is not by any means entirely a private entity. In fact, it didn't even come into being until an Act of Congress was passed in 1913 authorizing it. Central banks like the Fed are what we call MERCANTILIST. That is they hide behind the power and authority of government to pursue private business goals. They use the color of government for private gain. Inevitably they are not entirely private entities. They cannot be. Central bank apologists like Ellen Brown have campaigned to ensure that people believe central banks like the Fed are ENTIRELY private when they are not. This is because "Brownians" (and others) want to propose that central banks be owned outright by public entities. If it must be tried, it should be attempted within the ambit of monetary competition and without naming the central bank printed money as the sole legal tender. When it comes to money, private markets should have a chance to compete. Absent the force of law, they will win every time.'

'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?"

"Statism is going to become like racism: it will still be there but it will be underground because it's so socially disapproved of."

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

'When government is entrusted with the "redistribution" of wealth, no one should be surprised that the wealth straightaway is used to buy votes, to reward interest groups, to bribe constituencies, and to pay off friends -- not to mention to honor "public servants" with the style of life of which they think they are worthy. In terms of the growth of wealth and improvement of human life, these are all wasted uses. The situation is even worse when the money is borrowed or printed rather than taxed: The borrowed money must be taxed or printed eventually, while the printed money is simply stolen, by creating an artificial price inflation, from those who hold monetary assets (less likely to be the rich, whose assets are varied, than the poor and middle classes). Some people accept this corruption because they are deceived by the moralistic rhetoric that accompanies it (that the "self-interest" of the rich is replaced by the "public spirit" of the politicians); but it is more likely that the rhetoric is waved through more because people are satisfied with their share of the loot. As long as I get my "benefits" (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), then government must be doing a good job. Or, if "programs" exist to end or alleviate poverty, then we can congratulate ourselves on our own benevolence and compassion, as expressed through the "collective" action of government.'

'...the point of the government's policy on psychiatry is to treat all patients as having exclusively organic diseases and not socially generated problems; and medications, regardless of cost, are absolutely necessary to maintain this narrative.' -- If you feel you are not properly sedated, call 348-844 immediately. Failure to do so may result in prosecution for criminal drug evasion.

'Amateur surgery always ends in a bloodbath...' -- "Begging the mafia to solve the problem of crime is a futile, ridiculous and embarrassing thing to do."

tags: 2+2=5 repetitioncompulsion statism government democracy delusion StefanMolyneux

'Printing money from nothing is not just corrosive, it has significantly changed the face of modern society, and even the history of the world. It is difficult to imagine our lives without so much monetary stimulation. Probably there would be far fewer wars. And healthier food. And far less drug abuse. Far fewer people in jail and much less poverty. Far fewer dictators and much less torture. Fewer taxes and significantly less inflation. Regulatory authorities and their dictates would not be in vogue. Lawyers would not be in such significant demand. There would be fewer horrible depressions. And the fear-based promotions that the elites rely upon to push Western middle classes toward fuller global governance would not likely be available. Most importantly, the world would not be controlled, at least partially, by a tiny cabal of sociopathic central banking families.'

'...sincerity is no substitute for education. Lady Gaga, in our view, is being exploited. Her videos are supposed to shock; more importantly, her social "stands" are further confusing young people about the boundaries between what the State ought to do and what it CAN do (almost anything, apparently). In an era where an impossibly wealthy familial elite is trying to drive the world toward global governance as fast as possible, Lady Gaga's social activism fits right in. She emphasizes group rights over individual ones and ignores the larger issues of government-spawned violence to focus on the relentlessly narrow issues of sexual choice that affect small percentages of the larger population. There is her music itself and the violent and sadistic videos that accompany it. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that she is following a kind of script... The elites have always used music and musicians to effect a certain kind of social change. Can it all be a coincidence?'

'That would be an insult to Ponzi schemes...' -- "A ponzi scheme is voluntary."

Unoriginal sin is unoriginal.

'Can you have one without the other?'

'The FBI writes: “Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country [ie. unconstitutional Federal Reserve notes] are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence [ie. they are voluntary systems with no victim], they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country [ie. their wide spread adoption may collapse the corrupt banking system],” she added. “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” [ie. we will engage in acts of domestic terrorism to prevent the voluntary trade of private property.]' -- Competition is a sin!

'Mike Maloney is asked if we are moving toward a one world currency, but is this possible? What is the relationship between the wealth of a country and war? Would all countries lose their economy in order for this to happen? At what cost?' -- I see plans within plans. http://www.thedailybell.com/2683/Edward-Mandell-House

'I respond to an article by Dr Walter Block about my arguments against the value and potential of political action. Original article: http://lewrockwell.com/block/block180.html ' -- "I can't hear what you're saying above what you're doing."

'Local police found the 20-year-old circulating plans for the event on his mobile phone. He was arrested on 12 August, and charged with "encouraging or assisting in the commission of an indictable only offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007".' -- Competition is a sin!

"Here's what he's saying: We need to get the whole world ready for an alien invasion – that's not actually going to happen, that's all a mistake – but we should spend all of our resources building weapons to combat aliens... This is his economic stimulus?! Prepare for an alien invasion?! I mean, people look up to this guy! This is off-the-charts lunacy!" -- CNN: http://youtu.be/E1Fzzs7oVaA

'How our childhood experiences have an enormous impact on our openness to anarchic thought.'

'Well, we do not think more jaw-jaw is what people want to hear right now, or that the money magicians are capable of doing anything to stop the rapid erosion of public confidence. It is only the confidence of the public that enables the continuous printing of unrestrained fiat currencies – which combine to provide the base of an international Ponzi scheme. But something's happening around the world that the money masters didn't plan on. People are waking up. Stop the insanity! You cannot fix a dysfunctional monetary system that is built on a fraudulent premise by simply increasing the degree of the crime. The impossibly wealthy families who desire one-world governance will stop at nothing – including the use of force – to complete their centuries-long mission. But arrogantly, they will refuse to cease their devious efforts and instead will try to use these crises to bind the masses into accepting a fear-based international monetary solution. Out of chaos… order.'

'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.'

'If narratives are valued more than reality, or at least serve as proxies for reality, then right or wrong, what happens when that narrative is challenged? What happens is the same thing that happens at the individual level: rage. The immediate problem is that the grifts all rely on one key element: money. The system can allow itself to be cheated if there's money to support it, just like a grocer can toss you a free apple as long as the margins are still good, because ultimately it's good for the business and hence for the system. But when that money dries up, the institutional grift has to be closed but it will by necessity open elsewhere. Down the chain. From institutional to individual. Now instead of Novick being a cog in what looks like a giant carny act based on words, Novick himself starts demanding a little payout. Uh oh, now all your lies and diagnoses and credit cards don't matter a lick because Novick just Red pilled everything – he wants cash.'

'Dominant Social Theme: Government will give the kids what their parent didn't—a good A$$ whoopin! The blame game has started and naturally the government will not accept any responsibility. In this case, Cameron actually lays the blame at the parents of the tens of thousands of people rioting throughout the UK. We tend to think that this situation was destined to occur, as it will likely happen in other regions of Western society as well, because the system is financially and morally bankrupt. Inevitably the oppressors will face these sorts of "us and them" backlashes as people witness their living standards dissipate along with their future hopes and dreams. No one condones the riots and certainly this kind of misguided violence will do nothing to solve the declining public confidence in Britain's overly authoritarian government. One thing you can bet on is that the country that boasts the world's greatest concentration of cameras spying on its citizens is likely to get a few more.'

'The statistics, sociology, police brutality, massive food price increases and economic catastrophes behind the recent and continuing riots in Britain.' -- "A culture that is undermined and dissolved slowly through government regulations, through the tax incentives to bear children and live apart – results in young men and young women growing up without father figures, often in households where they have never seen anyone work." -- Pointing finger is pointing at government.

"Politics is all about getting unmet needs met through the state. And the unmet needs are childhood needs. What people are really trying to do when they want political solutions is they are trying to avoid the pain of dealing with what was missing in their childhoods."

'...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.'

'Walk on the estate stairwells with your baby in a buggy manoeuvring past the condoms, the needles, into the lift where the best outcome is that you will survive the urine stench and the worst is that you will be raped. The border police arrive at the neighbour's door to grab an "over-stayer" and his kids are screaming. British children with no legal papers have mothers surviving through prostitution and still there's not enough food on the table. It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped. Savagery is a possibility within us all. Some of us have been lucky enough not to have to call upon it for survival; others, exhausted from failure, can justify resorting to it.' -- London. No Future.

'COMMENTARY: In Europe and America a new type of conflict has been simmering for years. In Britain, in 2024 it is about to reach flash point. This conflict is different from anything that has gone before. Members of the same family will find themselves on opposite sides. PROF LAURENCE KOTLIKOFF (Author “The Coming Generation Storm”): It’s not a matter of if there’s going to be a generational fall out, it’s a matter of when and exactly how nasty it’s going to be. COMMENTARY: In twenty years time, it is the old who are in charge. The ageing population is bringing Britain to the brink of financial collapse. Which the young generation are about to ignite. CHET TREMMEL (Foundation for the Rts of Future Generations): We are not going to keep quiet when a band of pampered pensioners steal the future from us. COMMENTARY: The young of 2024 are becoming angry. They’re calling it generational fraud. Some have decided it can’t go on. YOUTH DEMO: We pay, they play, we pay they play…'

'The economic, political and social realities behind the rebellion of youth which cannot be resisted.' -- Pointing finger is pointing at government.

'The people are catching on. Thus we arrive at the strangest of moments when the world is figuring out that the forecasts of fire, flood and plague were faked, just as they realize the reassurances about the money were faked too. Disaster is coming, but not because of carbon. We’ve been worried about the wrong tipping point. Is it a coincidence? A random convergence of delusions? Not so. It takes one falsity to feed the other. We need a special kind of wealth to worry about bad weather 100 years from now. No one was watching the dollars hard enough... Corruption reigned across the high end of town. Politicians lied, scientists lost data, bankers mispriced risk and sold it to suckers but were bailed out, and public servants served government instead of the public. Science journals forgot what science was, professors broke laws of reason, and virtually everyone in the old media let them get away with it. Indeed the old-media was busy hacking phones for entertainment.'

'Daily Bell: What is socialism? Jesse: Socialism is where the government lies and tells people they can have things for free. Daily Bell: Why would government make such promises? Jesse: So they can get more money from the Federal Reserve. Daily Bell: Why would the people who run the Federal Reserve like that? Jesse: Because they have the machines and they can make themselves a lot more money by lending it to the government. Daily Bell: How do they make money by lending it to the government? Jesse: Because the government has to pay interest. The government taxes the people in the country to pay them back on the money they made on the machines. Daily Bell: How much do you think it costs the Federal Reserve to make the money on the machines? Jesse: They just need a whole lot of paper and paint. Daily Bell: Why do you think people let this process happen? Jesse: I think because they don't know it's happening really.'

'If you increase the workforce by 10% but only increase the resource by 5% then something is going to happen to the distribution of resources. ...the real reason for this crisis is not capitalism, but the actions of communist and socialist governments before they started the process of opening their economies. They created barriers to the integration of their labour force into the productive and enriching capitalist world economy, and then suddenly started 'dropping' the labour into the world economy at a rate that the capitalist system could not absorb. It is why we see the increasing divide in incomes between the rich and the rest. It is not the evils of capitalism, but rather the last terrible contribution of years of rejection of capitalism in countries like China and India. They created a flood of new labour into the world economy, and the result is that labour has been devalued. ...the fundamental causes...[:] government constraints and interference with free market capitalism.'

'WASHINGTON—In a hastily called press conference broadcast live on all major television networks this morning, Food and Drug Administration commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg implored every citizen of the United States to induce vomiting immediately. "Please, everybody, there's no time to explain. Just gag yourselves, drink ipecac, do whatever is necessary to puke everything out right now—all of it," Hamburg said moments before jamming her index and middle fingers deep into her throat and violently disgorging the contents of her stomach all over the lectern. "Do it now! Now, now, now!" As of press time, the FDA released a statement saying that everyone should have vomited by now and informing those who hadn't that it was "too late."'

'WASHINGTON—Sitting patiently in their chairs with their nappies on their lappies, the residents of the United States announced Wednesday they were ready for their din din. "Yummy yummy num nums," exclaimed a Nashville, TN–area big boy, 42, digging into a mound of macaroni and cheese as soon as his plate touched the table. "Mmmmmm." After din din, the nation will reportedly have its bath, get its jammies on, and then it's time for beddy-bye.'