Great post. There's one amendment I'd make, because I think it's so important that it may be the way out of all this. The Constitution forbids STATES from coining money, issuing bills or making anything but gold and silver into a payment for debts. The Constitution was a coup by merchants and bankers to make sure the States didn't take back the power they had as colonies (pre-British Currency Act) to enable domestic trade with their own currency.
According to Ben Franklin, the Revolution was fought over this, because colonial scrip had ended poverty and enabled every person to take responsibility for their own subsistence. Gold and silver specie was exactly what they were against because it wanted to migrate back to England and destroyed the self-reliance of the States.
Shay's Rebellion tried to bring back State-issued scrip because farms were being repossessed for taxes while veterans weren't paid for their service because of a lack of specie. An intercepted message and banker-funded militia defeated them and they were given amnesty if they never ran for office or voted again. Then the merchant-bankers did the secret Annapolis meeting and decided to scrap the crowd-sourced Articles of Confederation and replace it with One Nation Under Gold.
I write a section about this in my book, and how "coin money" was taken literally so that the Federal Gov't can only make change while the cartel of bankers called the Fed (stealing the name along with the most essential function) creates the money.
Not that there's anything wrong with the analysis, the distinction between politician-as-arbiter and as ruler is an age-old one after all, but I cannot help find one aspect missing:
Liberties and rights (or privileges in the original sense, which didn't have negative connotations) are cultural and ethnic concepts. What is a given right, even a virtue or a duty to one people is anathema and heresy to another.
In a segregated world, this isn't really a problem: strangers have their strange ways at home, and find yours equally strange. But in a "melting pot/fruit salad"-type cosmopolitan (or globalist as it is called today, despite the idea being from when modernism, capitalism and industialism ran rampant right up until 1914) society, someone else must be the arbiter of these rights etc, as culture cannot be that without also being racist.
Which leaves either corporate capitalism, where we are all equals as consumer/producers, or the state where we are all equal as taxable voting subjects, and neither can allow anything running counter to that generic and generalised condition, lest the corporate state be guilty of racially and culturally based favouritism and bias.
Rights and liberties work just fine when it's one people, one nation. Ten peoples in one nation means either that one of them lords it over the others imposing its cultural values as objective ones, or that an allegedly neutral unbiased state uses force to safegueard all the different peoples indidvidual idiosyncracies. The empiric examples of homogenous societies are Sweden up until the early 1990s, Japan, Korea, and such; the multicultural examples are nations such as Lebanon, Israel, USA post 2000, and Jugoslavia.
And in any type of democracy, it becomes necessary for the political class and all their functionaires to make sure that all loyalty is to the political system as such, not any outcomes, nor any cultural traditions or even religious ones if they may be counter to the values spouted by the political nomenklatura. Otherwise, the most populous group's traditions and mores will become the majority's through use of capital/state soft coercion. Pandering and triangulation only lasts so far until you must acquiesce to the majority. Or rig the vote. Or move as much as possible of the decisionmaking process beyond the actual reach of the elected, such as using the scapegoat "international agreements".
In plain language, since as you say one should be able to keep it simple and short: can't mix and match lotsa' different breeds without having a top dog with the biggest baddest bite.
Jul 5, 2022·edited Jul 5, 2022Liked by SimulationCommander
As i see it: A Bully with Dementia is in The White House and he’s mad because his approval rating continues to plummet because we’re not quite as stupid and gullible as his arrogance leaves him to believe. Our politicians don’t care that we are on the edge of a Cliff because the consequences of going over said precipice will have no bearing on them. They can easily survive this. We will be left with The Rich, the Upper Middle Class and the Poor. At 70, I’m ready to March on Washington. It is all unacceptable.
Up to a point we could live with the CoV craziness, but the result has affected our pocketbooks. The increase in prices has become in your face obvious thus exposing the bad policies of added energy restriction. Not even the greens fully anticipated what their prescription would create. Once they achieved a level of power, they took the dive whole hog. They couldn't accept the trend lines that had been forming.
Sadly pulling the plug on energy has happened at a very bad time. The CoV pandemic caused limitations on economics that needed to be adsorbed and leveled out. Those effects plus the energy shortages have created an economic effect that will set the world back years. Worse, those in charge seem to not fully understand the damage nor the belt tightening that will be needed.
I think this is one of the best posts from you since I've been reading your work. Excellent. Although it may be difficult (especially for those who have ignored the signs over the last decade or more and haven't done anything to prepare themselves financially, and in every other way) we do still have a lot of power to catapult these politicians back to their referee position by simply ignoring them. I'm amazed sometimes even here on Substack when I see so many people who claims to love liberty but are looking for someone else to provide said liberty by rising up as a great leader or passing a law to "make" liberty happen instead of doing what they have the power to do already: claim liberty for yourself! Make it happen for yourself! Live it in your everyday life. Ignore the politicians, the rules, edicts and mandates you know are flat wrong and be willing to suffer a bit for doing so. 56 people signed the declaration of independence and every one of them knew they could quite possibly be signing their own death sentence. And they did it anyway! Oh if we would all just grasp a little bit of the courage those 56 people had.
The sports analogy also reveals some fundamental differences about what kinds of games (and lives and governments) people want. Some people, call them men (and women who think like men) want straightforward competition with earned winners and losers, and indeed prefer refs who play a minor role focused on serious infractions of the few fixed rules. Some people, call them women (and men who think like women), want romantic competition, where everyone can win, or at least no-one loses. They support refs and other officials who (micro-)manage the play, including changing the rules in order to achieve a kinder outcome.
Yep, this is plenty sexist, but just compare the broadcasts of, say, NFL games from last century with olympic competitions, especially events like figure skating, today. And then correlate to the dominant (and targeted) viewer demographics. And after that, correlate to political styles and policy preferences and voter demographics.
I do feel sometimes as though some of our politicians overdosed on the originals or reruns of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. How else would they have learned to speak like world domination cartoon villains?
Great post. There's one amendment I'd make, because I think it's so important that it may be the way out of all this. The Constitution forbids STATES from coining money, issuing bills or making anything but gold and silver into a payment for debts. The Constitution was a coup by merchants and bankers to make sure the States didn't take back the power they had as colonies (pre-British Currency Act) to enable domestic trade with their own currency.
According to Ben Franklin, the Revolution was fought over this, because colonial scrip had ended poverty and enabled every person to take responsibility for their own subsistence. Gold and silver specie was exactly what they were against because it wanted to migrate back to England and destroyed the self-reliance of the States.
Shay's Rebellion tried to bring back State-issued scrip because farms were being repossessed for taxes while veterans weren't paid for their service because of a lack of specie. An intercepted message and banker-funded militia defeated them and they were given amnesty if they never ran for office or voted again. Then the merchant-bankers did the secret Annapolis meeting and decided to scrap the crowd-sourced Articles of Confederation and replace it with One Nation Under Gold.
I write a section about this in my book, and how "coin money" was taken literally so that the Federal Gov't can only make change while the cartel of bankers called the Fed (stealing the name along with the most essential function) creates the money.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607/
Great read!
Not that there's anything wrong with the analysis, the distinction between politician-as-arbiter and as ruler is an age-old one after all, but I cannot help find one aspect missing:
Liberties and rights (or privileges in the original sense, which didn't have negative connotations) are cultural and ethnic concepts. What is a given right, even a virtue or a duty to one people is anathema and heresy to another.
In a segregated world, this isn't really a problem: strangers have their strange ways at home, and find yours equally strange. But in a "melting pot/fruit salad"-type cosmopolitan (or globalist as it is called today, despite the idea being from when modernism, capitalism and industialism ran rampant right up until 1914) society, someone else must be the arbiter of these rights etc, as culture cannot be that without also being racist.
Which leaves either corporate capitalism, where we are all equals as consumer/producers, or the state where we are all equal as taxable voting subjects, and neither can allow anything running counter to that generic and generalised condition, lest the corporate state be guilty of racially and culturally based favouritism and bias.
Rights and liberties work just fine when it's one people, one nation. Ten peoples in one nation means either that one of them lords it over the others imposing its cultural values as objective ones, or that an allegedly neutral unbiased state uses force to safegueard all the different peoples indidvidual idiosyncracies. The empiric examples of homogenous societies are Sweden up until the early 1990s, Japan, Korea, and such; the multicultural examples are nations such as Lebanon, Israel, USA post 2000, and Jugoslavia.
And in any type of democracy, it becomes necessary for the political class and all their functionaires to make sure that all loyalty is to the political system as such, not any outcomes, nor any cultural traditions or even religious ones if they may be counter to the values spouted by the political nomenklatura. Otherwise, the most populous group's traditions and mores will become the majority's through use of capital/state soft coercion. Pandering and triangulation only lasts so far until you must acquiesce to the majority. Or rig the vote. Or move as much as possible of the decisionmaking process beyond the actual reach of the elected, such as using the scapegoat "international agreements".
In plain language, since as you say one should be able to keep it simple and short: can't mix and match lotsa' different breeds without having a top dog with the biggest baddest bite.
canada is doomed
Okay, this was a most excellent article. You can take the rest of the month off and I wouldn't complain. 🎯🎯🎯🎯
As i see it: A Bully with Dementia is in The White House and he’s mad because his approval rating continues to plummet because we’re not quite as stupid and gullible as his arrogance leaves him to believe. Our politicians don’t care that we are on the edge of a Cliff because the consequences of going over said precipice will have no bearing on them. They can easily survive this. We will be left with The Rich, the Upper Middle Class and the Poor. At 70, I’m ready to March on Washington. It is all unacceptable.
King Brandon’s fixes: 1) blame Russia
2) offer no other solutions
3) see #1
Let’s Go Brandon! 🤪
Up to a point we could live with the CoV craziness, but the result has affected our pocketbooks. The increase in prices has become in your face obvious thus exposing the bad policies of added energy restriction. Not even the greens fully anticipated what their prescription would create. Once they achieved a level of power, they took the dive whole hog. They couldn't accept the trend lines that had been forming.
Sadly pulling the plug on energy has happened at a very bad time. The CoV pandemic caused limitations on economics that needed to be adsorbed and leveled out. Those effects plus the energy shortages have created an economic effect that will set the world back years. Worse, those in charge seem to not fully understand the damage nor the belt tightening that will be needed.
I think this is one of the best posts from you since I've been reading your work. Excellent. Although it may be difficult (especially for those who have ignored the signs over the last decade or more and haven't done anything to prepare themselves financially, and in every other way) we do still have a lot of power to catapult these politicians back to their referee position by simply ignoring them. I'm amazed sometimes even here on Substack when I see so many people who claims to love liberty but are looking for someone else to provide said liberty by rising up as a great leader or passing a law to "make" liberty happen instead of doing what they have the power to do already: claim liberty for yourself! Make it happen for yourself! Live it in your everyday life. Ignore the politicians, the rules, edicts and mandates you know are flat wrong and be willing to suffer a bit for doing so. 56 people signed the declaration of independence and every one of them knew they could quite possibly be signing their own death sentence. And they did it anyway! Oh if we would all just grasp a little bit of the courage those 56 people had.
Pharma have captured both sides of the aisle. It won't matter who you vote for as long as the likes of Mitch McConnell are there
The sports analogy also reveals some fundamental differences about what kinds of games (and lives and governments) people want. Some people, call them men (and women who think like men) want straightforward competition with earned winners and losers, and indeed prefer refs who play a minor role focused on serious infractions of the few fixed rules. Some people, call them women (and men who think like women), want romantic competition, where everyone can win, or at least no-one loses. They support refs and other officials who (micro-)manage the play, including changing the rules in order to achieve a kinder outcome.
Yep, this is plenty sexist, but just compare the broadcasts of, say, NFL games from last century with olympic competitions, especially events like figure skating, today. And then correlate to the dominant (and targeted) viewer demographics. And after that, correlate to political styles and policy preferences and voter demographics.
Liberal World Order....
He's saying he hates national sovereignty, in other words, a globalist who hates his country. An enemy domestic
I do feel sometimes as though some of our politicians overdosed on the originals or reruns of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. How else would they have learned to speak like world domination cartoon villains?