Pegasus Research Consortium

what's everyone's opinion on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvfHLr5aEqU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM

@Undo, I would agree.

For added measure:

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu030xXGBA1qj6c8ho1_500.jpg)

So your saying that ....

NESSIE ISN'T REAL?

Derisive mockery?  Check.
Use of the body count troll?  Check.

The Left annoy me because they insist on self-victimisation, and generally can't get Marx out of their heads to save their lives.  The Right, however, annoy me because they are apparently not capable of making rational counter-arguments which rely on actual data, but insist on using derision and other indications of negative emotional bias. 

The one decent attempt at a coherent conservative argument that I've yet come across, was Mencius Moldbug's Open Letter to Open Minded Progressives.  He was still wrong to the point of being insane, but he genuinely, sincerely tried, and I can't adequately verbalise how refreshing that was.

I barely even need to respond to this, but I will; with a documentary that I've known about for a while now, called Our Technical Reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv0Y1t1bNw

This documentary demonstrates the fact that, yes, massive labour automation is completely technologically possible, right now; and many forms of it have been for at least a hundred years.  Telsa performed very basic experiments in robotics.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. 

Material inequality does not exist because it physically or technologically needs to, but because the Right want it to. 

The man in that video can be as derisive as he wants; but the simple fact is that the Right psychologically need both war and the Zero Sum Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game).  They don't believe that continued human development is possible without them.

There is another issue here which needs to be brought up; and that is that the Right always assume that economic or material equality is unavoidably associated with large central government.  By contrast, I am a strong anti-federalist; I do not believe that it is appropriate for any single nation or geopolitical entity, to ideally have a population of more than a hundred people.  This is because the human brain can only keep track a hundred relationships at maximum.  Beyond that, and social intimacy and accountability are lost, and the psychopaths start taking control.

With such a small national population, every person could easily be a member of said nation's legislature, and no law would be passed that was binding on anyone who was not physically present in the room.  The issue of such a small group being unable to maintain a contemporary standard of living, would also be resolved via automation.  You don't need a large number of human beings living in a society if you have robots.

The next Right objection to this, is inevitably the mention of war, and the idea that such small nation-states could not exist without being conquered by others.  My answer to that is that it is not the entirety of the population that want war, but primarily the psychopaths.  If the psychopaths were diagnosed and permanently incarcerated as soon as they were born, and if we stopped telling ourselves that war is necessary, it would no longer need to occur at all.

We do not need war.  We WANT it.  We do not need scarcity.  We WANT it. 

Neither of these things have to be inevitable.  They only are because we insist on it.

(https://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/capitalism-socialism-libertarianism-anarchy-fascism-nl-rbe.jpg)

Quote from: petrus4 on October 16, 2014, 04:30:20 AM


Material inequality does not exist because it physically or technologically needs to, but because the Right want it to. 

The man in that video can be as derisive as he wants; but the simple fact is that the Right psychologically need both war and the Zero Sum Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game).  They don't believe that continued human development is possible without them.

Question for you Petrus;  only "The Right"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vscG3k91s58

Quote from: burntheships on October 16, 2014, 04:48:52 AM
Question for you Petrus;  only "The Right"?

You're correct that I'm generalising; but I do view a pre-occupation with the Zero Sum Game as an element of Right or conservative thinking.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 16, 2014, 05:10:04 AM
You're correct that I'm generalising; but I do view a pre-occupation with the Zero Sum Game as an element of Right or conservative thinking.

I was pretty much thinking outloud there, however.......

Also...I wonder if there are more in power that just are intent to use other
peoples money, whatever they are labeled?

Quote from: zorgon on October 16, 2014, 05:08:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vscG3k91s58

"Greed" is good when it comes to keeping ones money out from the hands and the coffers of the gubbments....in that clip the Holly Wood... they fuzz the line
between keeping what is ones own, and greed.

IMO, keeping ones own from others is not greed, it is simply wise.
If one so wishes to be benevolent, one can choose whom to share with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ

:D

Quote from: burntheships on October 16, 2014, 05:27:12 AM
Also...I wonder if there are more in power that just are intent to use other
peoples money, whatever they are labeled?

This is arguably true as well; but the video in the OP was overwhelmingly playing the Left/Right game, so I am going to call it as I see it. 

The other reason why I bring up the Left/Right dichotomy here, is that the Right's argument against what they perceive as socialism, is always based around the expectation that socialism's advocates want to steal their money, because according to conservative thinking, money (and everything else) is in very limited supply.  They are hence always going to assume that wanting to provide for everybody, means stealing from somebody, because the idea that we can actually produce more resources rather than stealing them from someone who already has them, exists outside conservative thought.  It is unthinkable to them; it does not compute.

Although practically every political test online consistently profiles me as a Leftist, I do not actually consider myself either Left or Right.  Both sides, when they are viewed in exclusion, have serious problems.

It's also true that most of the people in power are psychopathic, who don't care what political or economic label applies to them, as long as they get what they want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLr2if-BdA4

hehe

As another point, I will openly admit that I dislike threads like this one, because they don't really accomplish anything other than to cause the usual suspects around here, to experience a sense of smug self-justification, when I don't believe that there is any truly rational basis for them to do so.

The fact is that whichever way you slice it, logistical inequality is not a good thing for any society.  You can talk about raising yourself up by your own bootstraps or Atlas shrugging as much as you want; but the way things are going, the supposedly self-reliant demographic in Western society, only have gated communities to look forward to, and not even a foot outside of said gated communities, will be something akin to Hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw

Notice also how different this video is from the one in the OP.  The tone isn't derisive or condescending; Richard Wilkinson is polite, even friendly.  He also mainly just lists scientific data.

Money is also only as good as the things it will buy.  If the disciples of Ayn Rand continue trashing the environment, there isn't going to be any more stuffed lobster and creme brulee even for those who can afford it, because lobsters, cows, and vanilla plants will be extinct.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 16, 2014, 04:30:20 AM

Right psychologically need both war and the Zero Sum Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlW52HhA_48

??

Quote from: petrus4 on October 16, 2014, 07:26:29 AM
As another point, I will openly admit that I dislike threads like this one, because they don't really accomplish anything other than to cause the usual suspects around here, to experience a sense of smug self-justification, when I don't believe that there is any truly rational basis for them to do so.

The fact is that whichever way you slice it, logistical inequality is not a good thing for any society.  You can talk about raising yourself up by your own bootstraps or Atlas shrugging as much as you want; but the way things are going, the supposedly self-reliant demographic in Western society, only have gated communities to look forward to

that's assuming anybody who doesn't believe socialism's approach is good, is therefore rich.  personally, i enjoy helping people who need help, if i have it to give, but i can't presume that my neighbor must therefore match my contributions.  it's just theft, at gun point. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPJSAnm3NTQ

????

Quote from: burntheships on October 16, 2014, 05:27:12 AM
Also...I wonder if there are more in power that just are intent to use other
peoples money, whatever they are labeled?

And what is wrong with using other peoples money exactly?

Perhaps if we all learned just HOW that works  we would all be richer?

::)

Quote from: zorgon on October 16, 2014, 10:46:11 AM
And what is wrong with using other peoples money exactly?

Perhaps if we all learned just HOW that works  we would all be richer?

::)

other's people's money is not YOUR money. it's theirs. like your house is yours, not mine. 
that's why when you borrow other people's money, you are expected to pay it back (oftentimes with interest so that they benefit from the transaction), unless they give it to you or loan it to you, how could you be using it legally or even ethically?

Quote from: undo11 on October 16, 2014, 07:45:41 AM
that's assuming anybody who doesn't believe socialism's approach is good, is therefore rich.  personally, i enjoy helping people who need help, if i have it to give, but i can't presume that my neighbor must therefore match my contributions.  it's just theft, at gun point.

But if anybody already has more than their share of the worlds wealth then it could be argued that the crime has already taken place.

Those people with an unfair share of wealth would include the whole of middle class America and Middle class Western Europeans.  It is right wing Nationalistic blindness that makes people believe that it is fair that they are so well off.  It seems fair only because folks do not see beyond their system that teaches (and enshrines in law) that if you have that wealth legally then it is morally OK.  Perhaps it is but I would not fancy my chances trying to convince the majority of the worlds poverty stricken population that it is fair or moral that overweight Americans, Brits and Germans can drive around in their overweight cars while children die from starvation.

Obviously a system should reward the innovative and hard working with a better standard of living than people who refuse to contribute (don't forget some people can't due to economic circumstances meaning jobs are hard to come by).  A fair and moral system starts by dividing resources so that the poorest have enough.  If there is any resources left then competition for the extra resources is fair game in my view.  But you have to start by offering a baseline share of wealth to every family or person if you want a fair society.

The current global economic system does not allow this and needs to be reformed dramatically or replaced with one that can - democratically if possible.  That is my kind of revolution.

Quote from: Pimander on October 16, 2014, 12:45:24 PM
But if you already have more than your share of the worlds wealth then the theft has already taken place.

depends.  if your "share" came about as a result of stealing it from others, then yes, you're right.   but if it came about from hard work, innovation, or the hard work and innovation of your predecessors, that's hardly a crime against humanity.

americans have been supporting charities all over the world, for years now, and most of the money is absorbed by the people working in the offices, so they have a job commensurate with their educations.

another portion is absorbed by thieves in the countries where the people are suffering, such as the issues in places in africa where the UN has refused to send in help, in the past, even after the funds had been raised via charitable donations, because the workers were slaughtered and the stuff stolen by the drug lords who live there and keep the people poor.  then that is blamed on the average american white person.  you can't make this stuff up. 

we americans, particularly white americans, all have big flashing targets on us, for 1) trying to make the plight of the poor better via charity, rather than via forced taxation, (i mean how's that gonna look in the news? people being kind to total strangers, just out of the goodness of their hearts and the whole thing is stolen by drug lords and then blamed on white americans - greedy capitalists can't also be charitable capitalists, apparently -- nothign good has come from capitalism, blah blah blah), 2) trying to make the plight of humanity in general, better and 3) for daring to think it could be done honestly, and without ulterior motive other than making oneself and the world a better place.

watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YV-8xtcfvM

oh you did an edit

Quote
Obviously a system should reward the innovative and hard working with a better standard of living than people who refuse to contribute (don't forget some people can't due to economic circumstances meaning jobs are hard to come by).  A fair and moral system starts by dividing resources so that the poorest have enough.

listen you're preaching to the choir, but the system is set up to take your money and redistribute it in such small amounts to the impoverished, that the plight of the poor never manages to improve.

the system absorbs the bulk of it, upfront, then redistributes a pittance to the poor, so the poor can be counted on to blame the whole thing on the people who are paying the money, rather than the system, which steals most of it, first, and then redistributes a tiny remainder to the poor.  keeping the poor artificially poor and reliant on handouts, is how they keep votes coming in, and also how to prepare an army of people willing to blame their impoverishment on the very people who did help them - et al the taxpayers and charitable donations.

i don't agree with taxation because it steals the money of other people.  i'm willing to pay it, because i'm capable of doing so.  but i don't presume i have the right to force you to pay it if you don't want to.  it's unethical, it's immoral, to force an unwilling participant to pay for something that is neither their fault, nor their responsibility, unless they want to, out of the kindness of their hearts.

Quote from: undo11 on October 16, 2014, 01:01:04 PM
depends.  if your "share" came about as a result of stealing it from others, then yes, you're right.   but if it came about from hard work, innovation, or the hard work and innovation of your predecessors, that's hardly a crime against humanity.

Well yes and no.  Yes it is fair that people are rewarded for their work.  But if it is impossible for others to ever get out of poverty because of inequalities that existed before we were born then that is still not fair.  In an extreme example, I don't care how the British Royal Family got their land (fairly or not) there are many without any land and we want our share.  MY ancestors might have worked harder than someone else but that does not mean I should always be wealthy at their expense.

Quoteamericans have been supporting charities all over the world, for years now, and most of the money is absorbed by the people working in the offices, so they have a job commensurate with their educations.

Agreed.  It stinks.

I don't think though that the rich giving to charity should mean wealth should stay unfairly distributed.  The system needs to change to be fairer.  Charity may make people feel better but it is no solution.  Just giving some of your unfair share of the wealth back is not enough to make things fair.  If things were fair then there would not be any need to give to the poor.  Taxation is a fairer (as in everyone pays the same) way to distribute some of the money of those who have an unfair proportion of resources.

I believe in a tax system which is progressive rather than regressive.  That way only the very rich pay a lot and those who have little pay almost nothing.  After all, the poor can't afford to pay for services and the rich can.  Ultimately it is all about fairness to me.

I don't see many morally defensible arguments against my position.

I agree with Pi,

A simple solution to a simple problem.

Did ever one ever read the story of Robin Hood?

Implimenting the solution may be far from simple, however.

All talks in between are irrelivent.

If you take the bar chart representing the worlds wealth and distribution, the problem is there for all to see, I suggest that chart should be adjusted to represent distribution that is morally and ethically correct. Plus, even the figures suggest we'll 'all' be 'well off' after said ajustment.

Quote from: Sinny on October 16, 2014, 02:33:02 PM
I agree with Pi,

A simple solution to a simple problem.

Did ever one ever read the story of Robin Hood?

Implimenting the solution may be far from simple, however.

All talks in between are irrelivent.

If you take the bar chart representing the worlds wealth and distribution, the problem is there for all to see, I suggest that chart should be adjusted to represent distribution that is morally and ethically correct. Plus, even the figures suggest we'll 'all' be 'well off' after said ajustment.

but that's not the plan.  the plan is to depopulate by blaming anybody that has anything that they worked to get, or inherited from family, that worked to get it.   it is not your fault that other countries on the planet, abuse their citizens.  it is the fault of their leaders.   how is some family, who is only surviving because the government allows them to have foodstamps, or allows them to keep enough of their money to pay their bills, at fault for abuses everywhere?  that's like crazy talk.

   it's not the fault of other people on the planet, that our governments are abusing their citizens, either, and for the same reason - you're only guilty for what you personally do, not what other people do.  any talk to the contrary is evidence of brainwashing 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5QTjg2HI5Y

that's worth watching

this is where we are heading if we don't stop blaming each other, for what governments of the world do, including our own. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyIZiRCvqVM

Quote from: zorgon on October 16, 2014, 10:46:11 AM
And what is wrong with using other peoples money exactly?

Nothing, and agreed that in mutual transactions it can be beneficial
to both parties.

Quote

Perhaps if we all learned just HOW that works  we would all be richer?

Yes.

To clarify my original comment was specifically made concerning taxation,
in which I failed to use proper wording to get my point accross. What I was referring to by "those in power intent on using other peoples money" was the unjust taxation by governments.

Quote from: undo11 on October 16, 2014, 01:46:24 PM

i don't agree with taxation because it steals the money of other people.  i'm willing to pay it, because i'm capable of doing so.  but i don't presume i have the right to force you to pay it if you don't want to.  it's unethical, it's immoral, to force an unwilling participant to pay for something that is neither their fault, nor their responsibility, unless they want to, out of the kindness of their hearts.

Well said Undo!

QuoteI don't think though that the rich giving to charity should mean wealth should stay unfairly distributed.

the people of the united states are not rich.   we use to have a thriving middle class, now we just have a whole lot of people who are one pay day away from losing their homes, and the rest don't have jobs because they've been shipped off to communist china, who is for some strange reason, pretending they are capitalists.   if you refer to the 1%, many of those are globalists and not american citizens.

communists infiltrated our country at every level. while we were busy watching the hand that was pointing at nazis, the communists were doing even worse stuff and all of it was kept out of the news, so we wouldn't realize just how bad communism really is.

they took up jobs in universities and law schools, newspapers and radio stations.  then they indoctrinated an entire generation of college students and taught them to embrace elitism.  they ruined our economy using class and race warfare. and then shipped our economy off to a communist country. 

Quote from: undo11 on October 16, 2014, 04:58:00 PM
but that's not the plan.  the plan is to depopulate by blaming anybody that has anything that they worked to get, or inherited from family, that worked to get it.

What I don't understand is that Conspiracy Talkers have been saying for many dercades that the goal of the Elite is to DEPOPULATE the planet. As witness to that any new outbreak of disease, all the HARRP created earthquakes and storms, all the false flag shootings are all touted as being proof of this goal

Yet over those same decades population has been increasing exponentially around the planet with no signs of it stopping anytime soon

Seems to me that the Elites plan to DEPOPULATE the planet is not working so well.  Yet if that was what they really wanted to do it would be so very simple. We have developed so many ways to kill people both in mass or in focused groups that we could have achieved this goal 100 times over already.

So while the conspiracy crowd is talking depopulation, the Chinese and the Muslim are breeding like Rabbits and I bet within 50 years the Western Nations will be Islamic. (US has a small buffer edge due to the Hispanic factor  but only a small edge)

Quoteit is not your fault that other countries on the planet, abuse their citizens.  it is the fault of their leaders.

TRUE that...

...but should the non abusing nations not DO something about the abusive nations? Yes it's not our fault but do we do NOTHING?  If you see your neighbor beating his wife, kids or dogs... do you just ignore it and do nothing?

"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing"

Quotehow is some family, who is only surviving because the government allows them to have foodstamps, or allows them to keep enough of their money to pay their bills, at fault for abuses everywhere?  that's like crazy talk.

When the US became free of the tyrany of Britain back in the day.... only 20% of "We the people ..." stood up and did anything. Only 20%   The rest just stood by and did nothing.

Yet that 20% was enough for good to triumph and break free.

This freedom lasted until 1914  when once again no one did anything when Woodrow Wilson signed us back over to control of the banks

So who's fault exactly is it that we let these people into power?  Sure you can argue that the little farmers and average families can do nothing to stop it... yet history shows that b when NUMBERS of farmers and families stand together they CAN do something

Even though in 1914 we were sold back to the Bankers... this place is still relatively free...  the average family can just mind it's own business and pretty much not have any problems

Quoteit's not the fault of other people on the planet, that our governments are abusing their citizens, either, and for the same reason - you're only guilty for what you personally do, not what other people do.  any talk to the contrary is evidence of brainwashing

A good friend of mine... a Croatian... the fellow who taught me gem cutting... once told me about his father...

Now my friend was not a political activist, since he moved to Toronto to get away from the situation in Yugoslavia...  but when he was younger he was more politically active.  At the time Tito was in power... Croatian and Serbia   well we all know that both world wars involved those regions....

The point is he once talked with his dad, a local Croatian farmer... about being more active in getting Tito removed.

His father said that I am a simple farmer... Tito and his gang need to eat... so if I stick to my farming I will not have any trouble.

Now as my friend got older, he realized that what his father said was true.  As a simple farmer tending his crops, it did not matter who was in charge

So say  Maahhhhhh and tend to your business... its not your fault that Tito is running things.

::)

But if enough farmers took up a pitch fork and marched on Washington... even though Washington has machine guns.... would those farmers not be able to make changes?

I seem to recall that the Bundy family in Nevada did just that a few months back... seems the Feds with the machine guns backed down

Quote from: undo11 on October 16, 2014, 06:02:06 PM
the people of the united states are not rich.   we use to have a thriving middle class, now we just have a whole lot of people who are one pay day away from losing their homes, and the rest don't have jobs because they've been shipped off to communist china,

Well part of the blame falls on those letting their money be taken.  "A fool and his money are soon parted"

Now before you go off on that  :P  what I mean by this is that Americans have allowed themselves to get sucked up in credit consumerism.  The need to have the latest gadgets, etc.  So much so that the debt has literally killed them.

To be sure the corporation drive this but in the end the consumer IS responsible for spending beyond their means.  Back a few decades ago  we didn't see the writing on the wall  and fell into the money trap...  now we are paying for it BIG TIME

But there are still ways to recover... I have been procrastinating over the summer and basically sitting licking my wounds... so I am now back to where I was a few years ago and short of cash flow...

But this can be fixed  and I am starting right now to swing that pendulum. Burntheships and SkyOtter can both attest to the fact that what I say is true.  They have both been making extra money by hitting yard sales treasure hunting and reselling stuff.  When the economy goes bad, people need to get rid of stuff  so treasures can be found.  So with just a little effort  and a little internet know how  ANYONE can make a fairly nice living  but most certainly suppliment their income.

My sister sells enough now on Ebay to cover her house expenses and have enough left for a 2 week family vacation in Puerto Rico annually...  And all she sells mostly is fur coats she buys at church sales etc for no more than $50.00 and resells them for $200-$400 online

Quotewho is for some strange reason, pretending they are capitalists.   if you refer to the 1%, many of those are globalists and not american citizens.

There is nothing strange about it at all...


The Chinese government simply discovered that the vast majority of citizens do not give a HOOT about politics.  IF they can be left alone to make money they will stay out of politics. Same is true here really... leave me alone to do my business and I could care less whether Bush or Obama is playing war games messing up the planet  ::)

So China simply told their people  "Go forth and Prosper... just stay out of politics"

And so far its working. The new rich Chinese are buying up the USA  8)

Quotecommunists infiltrated our country at every level. while we were busy watching the hand that was pointing at nazis, the communists were doing even worse stuff and all of it was kept out of the news, so we wouldn't realize just how bad communism really is.

Well McCarthy tried  Look what that did. "A Commie under every bed"  Lets drag our citizens through the wringer and oust those Reds...

Quotethey took up jobs in universities and law schools, newspapers and radio stations.  then they indoctrinated an entire generation of college students and taught them to embrace elitism.  they ruined our economy using class and race warfare. and then shipped our economy off to a communist country.

Communism didn't work out so well for the Russians...

::)

and if you actually talk to most modern Chinese... ( I have run into MANY in the convention business) you will discover that the average Chinese person is more capitalist and the communism is never even dragged into conversation. They are all here to do business  not try to convert us.

One thing that IS noteworthy   it is the WOMEN that run the businesses.  One of the groups we contracted show setup for call their boss the Dragon Lady... and you should see them hop when she is around

Now she really is a nice person, but these guys that get to come to the US on these trips... for them its like making a months salary every day   so its a real perk.

And since our union says they are only allowed to actually work when our hall is empty... it was an interesting juggling match.

We finally solved it as they werte allowed to pack their own stuff  so we broke it down to the floor and they could pack.  It was a great working relationship

But NO ONE ever mentioned politics, communism or tried to convert anyone.  That is only in the conspiracy world

There was one time though... when the foreman and I were chatting.... he said his next show was Bejing...  So I said well if you like my work so much, how about you bring me over to help?  He said jokingly  "Oh that not for Whitey" 

::)

Quoteend the current offensively low tax rates on capital gains by going back to the best part of Reagan's tax reform, taxation of all income alike regardless of its source.

Third, change the estate tax to encourage the distribution of wealth. If a billionaire leaves it all to one heir, the tax ought to be confiscatory. But if that billionaire gave a million dollars each to a thousand people, the estate tax ought to be very much lower. In addition, an inheritance tax that takes account of the wealth of the recipient ought to be in place as well. Thus, to minimize taxes, the estate ought to be left to many people who are not very wealthy already. Of course, all the games that allow evasion of estate and inheritance taxes ought to be repealed.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains

@ Pimander,

That is an interesting snippet there. I'll go ahead and toss in my opinion on that;
IMO inheritance taxes should be abolished. Tax has already been paid on the wealth in one form or another, often times several times over.

The U.S. tax code is now 3.8 million words long.  All of Shakespeare's works would
only be about 900,000 words.

Here is a list of 97 taxes Americans pay on top of the income tax.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-25/list-97-taxes-americans-pay-every-year

Quote from: zorgon on October 16, 2014, 07:49:23 PM
Well part of the blame falls on those letting their money be taken.  "A fool and his money are soon parted"

Now before you go off on that  :P  what I mean by this is that Americans have allowed themselves to get sucked up in credit consumerism.  The need to have the latest gadgets, etc.  So much so that the debt has literally killed them.

To be sure the corporation drive this but in the end the consumer IS responsible for spending beyond their means.  Back a few decades ago  we didn't see the writing on the wall  and fell into the money trap...  now we are paying for it BIG TIME

agreed, however,  at the same time, wages were not keeping pace with inflation.  we have the buying power of the 1950s but with 2014 inflation.  this gap has been getting wider with each passing year, like slowly boiling a frog to death.  it drove moms into the work place, causing the loss of jobs for men, inevitably.

and at the same time THAT was happening a ton of quality of life laws were enacted,  that required we spend more to sustain the expected life quality for our children and our environment. the pay scale did not rise to cover these new expenses.  in fact, it keeps sinking lower and lower, while yet more quality of life laws are enacted and more taxes are being levied.

i'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that what is currently being called american capitalism is actually european royal socialism, exported via the globalist banking system, into the usa. there's really not much difference between an elite socialist ruling class, and an elite royal ruling class.  it may be how the crown heads of the world have managed to recapture the planet.

and if that's the case, you can bet the vatican has their fingers all over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kHpmZyhynA

The truly relevant part is at the end; but the rest is worth listening to as well, because it provides necessary context.

Open your minds, kids; and dump the fear.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 17, 2014, 04:54:53 AM

Open your minds, kids; and dump the fear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwrO6jhtC5E

so what we have there is the banks, up to their necks in mortgage fraud, designed to crash the economy, and essentially pull down the remaining independent business owners of the usa.  the banks (wall street and the irs)  colluded with the democratic party to push these mortgages onto people who couldn't afford them and then hid the balloon payments in small print.   

then they colluded to crash the entire planet's financial system, and put hundreds of thousands of businesses out of business, all over the world, causing the loss of millions, perhaps even billions of jobs, and then closed the doors on banks in which the elderly had stockpiled retirement funds for their old age, which the banks then stole. 

then they colluded with the democrats to force the american taxpayers to pay them even more money in the form of a financial rescue, that wasn't actually necessary, since they had just cornered the world's marketplaces and stolen the money of billions of people, overnight.  there were literally only 4 banks left standing, when the dust settled, and their businesses are all global.

the more you learn about this, the worse it gets.  i had a moment of "what the freak" when i learned that wall street and the globalist banking system, had actually bankrolled the bolshevik revolution and in league with the democratic party of the usa, forced american taxpayers to pay for the arming of the soviet union, the increases in their technology, and then america's response for tech that was better so we could keep up with the soviets, also out of the american taxpayers pocket. 

american military was used to train soviet soldiers, to rebuild soviet infrastructure, to train soviets how to use the factory equipment of alll the workers who had been killed during the revolution, to guard soviet railways while the  revolution was underway so that no neighbors could threaten their progress. 

then wall street set up their businesses inside the soviet union.  in effect, the elite of the usa's democratic party was completely onboard with the soviet union the whole time they were telling the american people that russia was our enemy. not only onboard, but using our tax dollars to bolster it, prop it up, and then benefited from the slave labor of the russian people by buying the soviet grains that were being created in forced labor camps, while the ukrainians were starved to death at literally, the same time.

oh it gets worse.  they then used our democrat owned press, schools, music industry and literary community,  to convince people that capitalism was the problem.  when in fact, real capitalism is actually legal, honorable business, not the shit these guys were doing.  this is how socialists take over whole countries,. it's all a big fat lie, designed to look like a real problem, artificially created so that they can offer the socialist solution, which is almost always a very bad deal for the people themselves.

the banks are working towards world socialism.  you might think, oh that's good!  you would be wrong. 

p.s.  i actually saw this happening, almost like in slow motion. just prior to, after and during the "war on terror', i would get 50 phone calls a day, everyday, starting at 8 in the morning and lasting till 10pm, monday-sunday, holidays, etc, begging me to take out a new mortgage on my home at 1% or 2% interest. 

hubby had already previously secured a fixed interest rate payment on the mortgage, several points higher, and didn't want to lose the fixed rate, so he told me to say "no." and so i did.  50 times a day, for months, thru my chemotherapy and breast cancer surgery, thru the loss of my mother, the war, every day, night and day.

why were they so desperately after our house mortgage, i wondered? well i found out later, that what they were doing was hooking people into taking their low interest rates, with huge interest rate balloon payments hidden in the fine print.  the entire housing bubble and the subsequent devastation, was all artificially created by socialists trying to topple the economy, not by capitalists trying to do actual business.

to be fair, many republicans have been in on this crap as well, but then the repubs of today are more like democrat socialists 40 years ago.  which is then levied against them by democratic progressives who don't think the repubs are helping to wreak the place, fast enough

the icing on the cake was when they got the politicians to remove the protections against stock market fraud, and then blamed the whole debacle on unbridled capitalism.

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 06:08:07 AM
the more you learn about this, the worse it gets.  i had a moment of "what the freak" when i learned that wall street and the globalist banking system, had actually bankrolled the bolshevik revolution and in league with the democratic party of the usa,

Wall Street bankrolled the Nazis as well, and thought Hitler was awesome.  Wall Street will throw money at anyone who is willing to be despotic towards the general public, while allowing Wall Street itself with sufficient freedom to do whatever it likes.

Talking about Hitler on the one hand, or the Bolsheviki on the other, has limited usefulness at this point.  Studying the Bolsheviki can be instructive, if you want to look at the bait and switch which was engaged in towards Emma Goldman and the genuine, Kropotkinian Anarchists (of whom I consider myself a spiritual descendant, to a limited degree) by Trotsky and Lenin, at Kronstadt and other places.  Trotsky in particular was an absolute monster; he was the Illuminati's supervisor for Stalin.

Studying Hitler is unlikely to accomplish much other than potentially defiling the mind and endangering the soul of whoever engages in said study; although Mein Kampf does have genuine utility, as a means of innoculating its' readers against Hitler's tactics being used against them in future.  Exposing oneself to the influence of demons is always a perilous undertaking, however; and I am inclined to view Hitler as being about as close to a physically incarnate demon, as has yet walked the surface of this planet.  Other than, of course, for his own handlers, most of whom we did not see.

Communism and Nazism were both used by the Illuminati as a means of limiting the public's options; of causing people to accept the illusion that although they were, "free," there was simply no rational point in trying to devise any form of economics other than contemporary neoliberalism, because supposedly they had already been tried, and had ended in mass murder. 

This is also why Amy and I have such a difficult task in front of us; because while I am genuinely not interested in either National Socialism or Communism, it is impossible to attempt to discuss any form of unorthodox economics, without the reflexive, deafening, and continual screaming of "Communism!" immediately occurring in response to it.  Marx, Stalin, and Mao sadly did their infernal work very, very well.

Quotethe banks are working towards world socialism.  you might think, oh that's good!  you would be wrong.

I do not.  I am uncertain whether or not you are going to be willing to listen to this, Undo, as you have apparently not been willing to do so earlier; but I will attempt to describe to you what my ideal social/political/economic scenario is, so that if you are going to insist on comparing it with Marxist Communism, you may at least do so honestly.

a}  I do not advocate federalism, whether global or national.  No central planning, in other words, at all.

To the extent that I advocate the existence of distinct geopolitical entities, I do not believe that they should consist of a higher maximum than one thousand adult individuals, and preferably they would in practice be considerably smaller than that.  This would be a concession to the hard limits of human neurology, which is incapable of keeping track of more than a hundred relationships simultaneously.

The additional benefit of a return to the radically small city state, would be that it would end the mockery of law which currently exists.  A population of one thousand or less, would mean that the entire population would also form the nation's legislature, which would in turn mean that no law could be passed, which would be binding on anyone who was not physically present in the room.  Thus, contract law would be all that would exist in practice, and not just in theory.

b}  I do not condone public or state run education.  This is the point after which, I may no longer be fairly or honestly accused of being a Communist, since to the best of my knowledge, state education is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto.  I believe that the education of children can and should only be rightfully performed at the discretion of both the child's parents, and most importantly, the child themselves.  Thus, classical homeschooling, unschooling, the Waldorf method, and whatever other unorthodox system that is yet to be devised, would all be fair game as far as I am concerned.

To the Communist state, the purpose of education is the breaking of the child's mind, to make it more permissive to tyranny.  For the real benefit of the child themselves, however, the purpose of education should be to teach the child how to most effectively engage in a combination of rational and empirical thought, which will allow them to reach autonomous and objective conclusions about any given topic.

c}  I do advocate that machine automation (and other, potentially as yet undiscovered methods) be used as a means of unconditionally feeding, clothing, and housing any and all individuals who have the requirement for such.  If we need to discuss the ownership of the machines which would be involved in this process, then I would likely respond by saying that the machines which performed these tasks for each individual, would be the property of the individual themselves. 

Edward Bellamy and the Venus Project both advocate commonly owned logistical infrastructure; I do not, because I am well aware of, and agree with, the Libertarian concern that such common ownership would most likely have the practical result of the negation of the individual, and collective tyranny.  So the disciples of Ayn Rand in particular, do not necessarily need to view me as their enemy; being such is not my intent.

Jacques Fresco advocated the collective means of ending logistical inequality; I, on the other hand, advocate that the mechanical infrastructure required for doing such, be given to each individual free and clear at their age of majority, and that as a result, there need be no talk of collective, centrally planned subjugation, as was advocated by Marx.

d}  To the extent that money should or should not be used, I primarily advocate that money be returned to its' original, Aristotelian purpose, which was simply a means of measuring and regulating scarcity.  Thus, there would be an end to usury, and money would be used to pay for those things which it was genuinely not possible to replicate technologically.  There would be the assumption that the technological replication of all commodities would eventually be possible, and thus, the vestigial Capitalistic economy for scarce resources, would likewise be presumed to be transitional in nature; although it should be kept for as long as it is truly necessary.

I will again emphasise the fact that I do not advocate anything here, which I believe is outside of the realm of real possibility.  It is not human nature itself, in any hard wired or involuntary sense, which needs to change; but merely human willingness.

I have mentioned before that there may be a need for the diagnosis and hospitalisation of psychopaths as they are born, in order to prevent society from reverting to a degraded condition similar to our present; but then again, I am also inclined to believe that small population size may provide sufficient accountability, that such individuals will no longer be able to gain enough influence to cause problems. 

Thus we see that, more than anything else, the small population size of individual nations is absolutely key, as is their complete autonomy in international terms.  While I never doubt the altruism or general positivity of Pimander's intentions, I will always disagree passionately with any advocacy of global federalism, as I regard it to be a recipe for perpetual, potentially irremovable, universal tyranny; and absolutely nothing more.

petrus

sounds like a good idea, all except the low population thing, because that part, smacks of genocide on such a massive scale that it'd make all prior atrocities pale by comparison.

So  on the one hand  it is argued that the Elite want to eliminate 90% of the population...

but then on the other hand the banks need every single useless eater to produce tax revenue

Doesn't add up in my math book


::)

Quote from: Pimander on October 16, 2014, 11:10:39 PM
end the current offensively low tax rates on capital gains by going back to the best part of Reagan's tax reform, taxation of all income alike regardless of its source.

Let's just hold off on that idea till I sell off my stuff.  All my life I have collected things expecting and hoping that one day when O retire I can actually get some good money returned for all the years of hard work.

The current capital gains taxes allow me the first $50,000 tax free. I bought the stuff  I kept it all these years and I expect to get a good return to live off the rest of my life

::)

QuoteIn addition, an inheritance tax that takes account of the wealth of the recipient ought to be in place as well.

After a lifetime of slavery to the system and hard work, WHY should my kids have to pay taxes AGAIN on what I already was extorted on? The percentage I have left and saved to pass on should now be taxed again?

Isn't this exactly the type of thinking that made us toss that Tea into the Harbor so long ago?

Look at the missing TRILLIONS annually, look at the TRILLIONS in black ops spending. Do any of you REALLY believe that all that money (on top of the day to day running of the government) comes from 120 million or so taxpayers?

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 07:48:12 AM
sounds like a good idea, all except the low population thing, because that part, smacks of genocide on such a massive scale that it'd make all prior atrocities pale by comparison.

What I said, was low population per geopolitical entity.  That does not necessarily mean a low overall population, at all.  It simply means that we might end up with a few thousand or million nation states, is all.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 17, 2014, 10:15:01 AM
What I said, was low population per geopolitical entity.  That does not necessarily mean a low overall population, at all.  It simply means that we might end up with a few thousand or million nation states, is all.

oh novel idea.  tell me more

Quote from: zorgon on October 17, 2014, 09:50:24 AM

Look at the missing TRILLIONS annually, look at the TRILLIONS in black ops spending. Do any of you REALLY believe that all that money (on top of the day to day running of the government) comes from 120 million or so taxpayers?

yep i keep saying, the plight of the poor could've been fixed decades ago in this country, but the system takes a bunch off the top, to keep the poor artificially poor, not because it benefits them financially (in other words, not as a result concern for competition) but because the final prize is world domination and you need a nice, pissed off, impoverished under class to aim at your targets, who have been indoctrinated in schools, books, movies, music, and in the press, to believe that it's all the fault of the only people who are actually helping (the average american).

Quote from: zorgon on October 17, 2014, 09:40:40 AM
So  on the one hand  it is argued that the Elite want to eliminate 90% of the population...

but then on the other hand the banks need every single useless eater to produce tax revenue

Doesn't add up in my math book


::)

no the taxes aren't because they need money. 

p.s.  i have no idea why you would call the taxpayers, useless eaters.

Quote from: burntheships on October 16, 2014, 11:37:09 PM
@ Pimander,

That is an interesting snippet there. I'll go ahead and toss in my opinion on that;
IMO inheritance taxes should be abolished. Tax has already been paid on the wealth in one form or another, often times several times over.

I agree that taxation is far to complicated (its even worse in the UK) and I'm not sure how but I'd look to simplify the tax system.

There are a number of ways but I am definitely in favour of a simplified (possibly tax on Capital or income only) tax system that is progressive not regressive.  The only way to tax fairly is to shift the burden most heavily onto the wealthiest with the poor paying very little.  Possibly only businesses should pay tax and not citizens as only businesses take wealth from citizens (the government is also a business).

Wealth needs redistributing.  It is unfair currently and the current system is indefensible on moral grounds.

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 10:27:54 AM
oh novel idea.  tell me more

It would essentially be identical to the tribal holdings of indigenous groups.  Although the Aborigines here in Australia were nomadic, each tribe had its' designated territory.  I'm pretty sure some of the early white settlers even drew a map with them once.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KECcfKViog

Quote from: petrus4 on October 17, 2014, 12:58:46 PM
It would essentially be identical to the tribal holdings of indigenous groups.  Although the Aborigines here in Australia were nomadic, each tribe had its' designated territory.  I'm pretty sure some of the early white settlers even drew a map with them once.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KECcfKViog

that was essentially the usa pre-civil war.

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 01:18:03 PM

that was essentially the usa pre-civil war.

Exactly.  The conspiracy that Marx gave his service to, goes back much further than you might think.  The Civil War was fought primarily to secure tax money for the bankers.

As this will hopefully prove, I am not a Communist.  While, again, I do believe in provisional post-scarcity, the means of producing such can and should remain in individual hands.  It does not and should not need to be held by a central government.

You should also know, that this was also the intention of many, many people who were deceived by the Bolsheviki in Russia, and murdered at Kronstadt, among other places. 

The original name of Soviet Russia was, in full, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  This means that each one of said soviets were initially intended to be autonomous.  It turned out to be a lie, of course; just as it is a lie in the "People's Republic of China."

The point is that in the case of Russia at least, many of the people wanted and initially believed that they were building what I am advocating here, and what that video advocated; but were given a mass-murdering statist nightmare instead.

There was a betrayal; the proverbial strawman argument.  There were two different ideologies, there; a potentially legitimate one, and Marxism.  The supposed failure of Marxism as a strawman, was used to discredit what came to be called Anarchism as well. 

They did the same thing to Christianity.  The Essenes (http://www.essene.org) were the genuine article; Pauline theology the strawman.  Pauline theology has now been demonstrated as laughably false and contradictory; but tragically, it has smothered Essene theology and largely left it in the rubbish bin of history.

It again has also been done with open source UNIX operating systems.  Richard Stallman and GNU/Linux is the false strawman; the BSDs and their licenses are the truth.  Linux is now deteriorating and being destroyed, and the BSDs will potentially go down with them.

The enemy is federalism.  It always has been.  Franklin and his contemporaries initially wrote the Articles of Confederation, and then later the Constitution.  I don't believe that any governmental connections can be permitted between individual territories, because it will always lead back to federalism; but the AoC was at least a lot more loose than the Constitution, which was based on the Augustine Principate model.

This is also the strategy.  Create a deliberately flawed mockery of whatever it is that you are attempting to destroy, while making sure that it is superficially similar to the point where people will be fooled; and then wait for your strawman to predictably fall, as you have intended that it would.  When the strawman falls, the valid form of the idea in question will be discredited as well, because at the time at least, the majority will not be able to tell the difference.

The fundamental difference between Anarchism and Communism, even more than the treasonous filth that Marx himself advocated, is the question of non-consentual or involuntary federation, or federalism.  Federalism is always conducive to tyranny; and if you have federalism present, then while you may not have Communism, you will still have the subjugation of the people.

There can be no internationalism, no federalism, and no delegation.  Any legislature that exists, can only be made up of those who are actual signatories of the law in question.  Law that is intended to bind those who are not signatories to it, is invalid, because it is law that will be enforced under duress, or without the consent of the people supposedly bound.  Contract law is the only form of law that truly exists in practice.

There is no such thing as legally valid representative government.  This is because a law can only bind the individual who signs it.  If your "representative," signs a law, then because he is a different person, said law only binds him.  It does not, in any demonstrable practice, bind you. 

If you send a representative or delegate to a meeting with other supposed representatives, what obligation does he really have, to represent you?  The people who truly rule our countries at the moment know how to create obligations for legislators that work, and so it is to said people in the shadows that said legislators are bound; not us.

http://scgnews.com/the-uk-political-pedophile-ring-scandal-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-the-full-story-is-much-more-d

Let me give you the above story as an example.  The author of said story even spells out the implications, explicitly.  What happens if a senator is a paedophile, and while most people do not know that he is, you do know?  How much power does this give you over that person, if you threaten to expose him if he does not obey you?

There can be no delegates, no representatives, and no federalism.  If there are any of these three things, then there will be tyranny.

well that was an interesting post.  what makes the situation all the sadder, is that it was tied at the hip to a travesty of justice already -- slavery.  and the solution?  enslave everybody?  whoever thought that twist up was diabolically brilliant.

(p.s. i'm making a rpg, it's actually working.  well, so far. it's unity, though.  it's a non violent game, scifi/fantasy themed .  i'd looooooove to have you write the lore, my gosh, your vocab and control of the language is shockingly good.  sometimes i read your writing and it's like poetry. your brain works in strange ways lol )

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 04:08:59 PM
well that was an interesting post.  what makes the situation all the sadder, is that it was tied at the hip to a travesty of justice already -- slavery.  and the solution?  enslave everybody?  whoever thought that twist up was diabolically brilliant.

The cabal's movements have mirrored humanity's own.  We kept demanding more and more freedom, so they had to remove the institutions by which they subjugated us from external law, and rebuild said institutions within our very minds.  That created a scenario where we began to believe that a condition worse than formal slavery, was something that we had chosen voluntarily.

We are not slaves, formally.  Yet if we do not have occupations, we will starve; and said occupations are usually an order of magnitude more arduous than the relatively simple subsistence foraging or hunting that we were required to do before all of this.  Said occupations have no relationship whatsoever to our direct sustenance, either.  We are given a worthless mockery of money, and are dependent on the industrial system that we give said money to, which provides us with food that our bodies were not biologically designed to process.

We are told that we are free.  Yet we are prevented from correcting the errors in the unnatural, dishonest system of economics to which we have been subjected, by the deception that now exists in our own heads, which says that any possible alternative has already been tried, so it is pointless to continue to do so.

Our fictitious, psychopathic "representatives," pay lip service to the desirability of peace, yet we now have endless war.

I have just been given an external computer hard drive which, by coincidence relative to this discussion, contains a copy of the film, V for Vendetta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruEUCwVgHdk

If you haven't seen this film, Undo, then I recommend it; and if you have seen it, I still recommend watching it again.  It will bring into focus much of what I have been saying; truthfully, for most of the time I've spent on this forum.

Quote from: zorgon on October 17, 2014, 09:50:24 AM

Look at the missing TRILLIONS annually, look at the TRILLIONS in black ops spending. Do any of you REALLY believe that all that money (on top of the day to day running of the government) comes from 120 million or so taxpayers?

;D

At one point in 2012 The Black Budget was estimated at 75 billion ( annually!!!!) .
http://fas.org/irp/budget/index.html

I suppose that would go a long way towards "social programs".

If the Pentagon really "spends" that money, or if it is just lines on
a budget, who really knows? Where does all of that money really go?
Who is keeping track? Who tracks down the missing millions?

:o

Who really knows how many government agencies there are in the first place?

The government does not even know.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 17, 2014, 04:39:54 PM
The cabal's movements have mirrored humanity's own.  We kept demanding more and more freedom, so they had to remove the institutions by which they subjugated us from external law, and rebuild said institutions within our very minds.  That created a scenario where we began to believe that a condition worse than formal slavery, was something that we had chosen voluntarily.

We are not slaves, formally.  Yet if we do not have occupations, we will starve; and said occupations are usually an order of magnitude more arduous than the relatively simple subsistence foraging or hunting that we were required to do before all of this.  Said occupations have no relationship whatsoever to our direct sustenance, either.  We are given a worthless mockery of money, and are dependent on the industrial system that we give said money to, which provides us with food that our bodies were not biologically designed to process.

We are told that we are free.  Yet we are prevented from correcting the errors in the unnatural, dishonest system of economics to which we have subjected, by the deception that now exists in our own heads, which says that any possible alternative has already been tried, so it is pointless to continue to do so.

Our fictitious, psychopathic "representatives," pay lip service to the desirability of peace, yet we now have endless war.

I have just been given an external computer hard drive which, by coincidence relative to this discussion, contains a copy of the film, V for Vendetta.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruEUCwVgHdk

If you haven't seen this film, Undo, then I recommend it; and if you have seen it, I still recommend watching it again.  It will bring into focus much of what I have been saying; truthfully, for most of the time I've spent on this forum.

i've always found that movie to be disturbing and emotionally abusive.   already been there, not interested. going slowly insane, once in my life, was quite enough, cause it sure as heck felt like torture, even if the whole thing was only in my infected brain.  no one should have to go thru what i did.  no one.  i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy or my best friend. when i say no one, i mean NO ONE.

to me, he doesn't represent a free-ing influence.  there's no illuminating knowledge there worth exploring other than his twisted mind,  nor does he provide any kind of logical rationale worth mentioning, that'd convince me that his behavior, where she was concerned, was necessary, logical or anything short of plum crazy. 

i get really fed up with the movie themes that suggest that anyone who has a spiritual bone in their bodies must be divulged of it, post haste, unless it happens to look just like their bone.  for their own good.  what a bunch of crap

sorry, i don't like v for vendetta,.

This solidifies my opinion that political parties are among the more inherently toxic dichotomies we are forced to share earth with.

The hardest lesson for me, years and years ago, was learning how to evaluate both parties "vision". It took me years to form the discipline necessary to keep my head from exploding. It is quite refreshing being able to vote based on a legitimate analysis of ones vision.

The one thing that bothers me about the Republicans however, is they too often justify their position with an attack against Democrats. All I hear is: "Well those leftists are WAY worse than us". And all I hear the Democrats say is: "Ok people, here's how we'll make this work...We're gonna slap another few layers of bureaucracy on top of the now under performing last installment"

I'm an Independent. but I believe my political philosophy to be "progressive". I don't feel it's an ideology, I believe it's a task. It's called being smarter than I was yesterday.

Quote from: burntheships on October 17, 2014, 04:49:36 PM

Who really knows how many government agencies there are in the first place?

i think z mentioned there was like 300, at his last count. or when he stopped counting or something like that.

Quote from: Glaucon on October 17, 2014, 05:26:42 PM
And all I hear the Democrats say is:

you apparently have one of their infamous brainwashing filters on your ears, cause what i hear them saying is whitey is a dead guy, and his little wife too. and i hear them say that, regardless of what color they are.  over and over and over and over, deep breath, and over ad nauseum. 

i take those kinds of threats, seriously, cause i like my whitey guy, and i like myself, and my kids, and friends, and even my not so friends.

let's look back to when bush was voted in for the second time.  cnn had a chart on the evening news, with a commentator who informed us all that people who live in the red states (repubs), had less education, had lower iqs, and several other completely out of left field, totally ridiculous accusations. 

later, i learned this is a socialist tactic -- you must first reduce your target population to subhuman status. what you see that guy doing in the op, is proving that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to be derogatory and smug. but it does take a socialist to try to socially engineer a country by referring to half its population as a subspecies.

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 05:24:55 PM
to me, he doesn't represent a free-ing influence.  there's no illuminating knowledge there worth exploring other than his twisted mind,  nor does he provide any kind of logical rationale worth mentioning, that'd convince me that his behavior, where she was concerned, was necessary, logical or anything short of plum crazy.

The point was to create a scenario where seemingly the only available choice, was either self-betrayal via capitulation to tyranny, or death; such that facing death would prove a sufficiently liberating experience that such self-betrayal was no longer possible.

It was to convey that that is the essence of self-management, and therefore sovereignty; the realisation that regardless of what happens, the one capacity that we always retain, is the ability to choose how we will respond to said events.  Victor Frankl wrote of that, after his own experience during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

http://www.freeyourmindaz.com/uploads/1/2/8/3/12830241/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-2011.pdf

This is something else, related to this topic, that I could share with you.  I think you'll find it considerably less twisted, although to a large extent it conveys the same message.

Quotei get really fed up with the movie themes that suggest that anyone who has a spiritual bone in their bodies must be divulged of it, post haste, unless it happens to look just like their bone.  for their own good.  what a bunch of crap

I don't really understand how you came to this interpretation, I will confess.

I'm a white male. I hear what you described ALL the time. I'm very consciously aware that EVERY ethnicity group has some sort of organization based, and named, solely on their ethnic heritage. And I'm well aware when my kind congregate, we're considered supremacists and racists.

I have recently made the decision to move out of Silicon Valley and move to Chandler Arizona where my sister is. I feel uncomfortable, left out, and alone in my area now.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 17, 2014, 06:24:25 PM

part of the "war"  of ideologies in the usa, is the old battle between catholics and protestants..   many of the original usa citizens were non catholics, fleeing europe, not just to get away from the poverty and taxation, but the inquisitions and other travesties, leveled by the catholic church against non-catholics.

when king henry wanted a divorce and the pope wouldn't give it to him, he started the church of england, put his own minster in and had him give him a divorce. if you'll recall, elizabeth the first, was his daughter.  she was a "non catholic" queen (et.al, a protestant).  this was a big deal and several attempts were made on her life, in order to replace her with a catholic one.  this kinda stuff went on for a long time, like hundreds of years. 

v represents guy fawkes, a catholic dude who was trying to blow up the protestant parliament. the official catholic church's political position in the usa, is democrat, in direct opposition to the protestant position of "conservative" and one of the reasons for that is, protestants fled to the usa to get away from the royals and the vatican.   we were taught from the time we were small children, the stories of how our ancestors fled the corruption, greed and persecution, to form a better country that is now being systematically torn apart by socialists, who are willing to see half of us dead in order to fulfill some lofty goal of a socialist utopia that we all know is not meant to be anything other than a big stinking pile of dead bodies and not an utopia at all.

v is the catholic church.  he's the mob. he's a fascist pretending to be a freeing influence, when in fact, it's like out of the frying pan, into the fire.  people fled to this country to get away from that sh.it

remember remember the 5 of november.  it's all over the world now, dealing out justice and mercy and stealing people's money and doling out mob justice. i can almost see the pitchforks and torches. 

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 06:54:00 PM
part of the "war"  of ideologies in the usa, is the old battle between catholics and protestants..   many of the original usa citizens were non catholics, fleeing europe, not just to get away from the poverty and taxation, but the inquisitions and o

I thought the USA was a Roman creation.

Tupper Saussy: Rulers of Evil (http://www.granddesignexposed.com/pdf/RulersofEvil.pdf)

Quote from: Pimander on October 18, 2014, 02:19:06 AM
I thought the USA was a Roman creation.

Tupper Saussy: Rulers of Evil (http://www.granddesignexposed.com/pdf/RulersofEvil.pdf)

reading it now.  this is depressing.  thanks alot, pim lol
oh dear.

uh, any place left on the planet that actually likes human beings and doesn't hate white people?

oh my, z  should know that this guy is saying rosicrucianism was governed, secretly, by the black pope. he may disagree with that assumption and i'd sure be interested to know on what basis, so i could add the data to my own timeline.

i think the author may be wrong on a few of his points, such as his belief that enoch was marduk (mercury).  if you look at the who begat whos in the book of genesis, prior to noah, you find enoch, a pre flood character. 

marduk, on the other hand, was post flood, as is evidenced in the writings of his priests, who declared that he had done all the deeds hitherto listed as being done by enki, anu and enlil, and recounted in the sumerian literature, which had been buried under 8ft of flood silt and only recovered less than 100 years ago. 

this means that for thousands of years, scholars, historians and archaeologists, had only the data of marduk's priests and later priests, by which to determine ancient, pre - black sea flood history of sumer (that is, if you don't count the torah (old testament deutorocannonical books)). 

so i think he's wrong on at least one of his points. part of the problem is then, that the ancient data on marduk, as recounted by his priests, is in itself, disinfo.  yep, 5000 year old conspiracy. lol

Quote from: Pimander on October 18, 2014, 02:19:06 AM
I thought the USA was a Roman creation.

Tupper Saussy: Rulers of Evil (http://www.granddesignexposed.com/pdf/RulersofEvil.pdf)

It is.  As I've said before, the Jeffersonian Republic is a clone of the Augustine Principate.

As for that PDF Pimander, thanks, but I've not long woken up; so it's a bit early for Baphomet. ;)

Quote from: petrus4 on October 18, 2014, 05:54:48 AM
It is.  As I've said before, the Jeffersonian Republic is a clone of the Augustine Principate.

As for that PDF Pimander, thanks, but I've not long woken up; so it's a bit early for Baphomet. ;)

oh it doesn't talk much about baphomet at all, it's mostly about the jesuits, and other pieces of eyebrow raising data, such as reagan giving the pope his own state inside washington dc, and the subsequent dissatisfaction of many who felt it was a direct violation of church and state laws.

this stuff reads like a chess game. :o

Quote from: undo11 on October 17, 2014, 05:29:13 PM
i think z mentioned there was like 300, at his last count. or when he stopped counting or something like that.

I was only counting the spook and military ones  :P

120 spook agencies alone when I stopped counting   :o

Quote from: undo11 on October 18, 2014, 07:47:46 AM
this stuff reads like a chess game. :o

It is a chess game and it is still going on.  That book is a real eye opener.

Quote from: zorgon on October 18, 2014, 11:19:28 AM
120 spook agencies alone when I stopped counting   :o

Don't forget the British, Chinese, Russians, Israeli and Vatican agencies.  At least 500 effective spy agencies without mentioning the other G8 nations.

If you fart, they know about it. :P

Quote from: undo11 on October 16, 2014, 11:10:07 AM
other's people's money is not YOUR money. it's theirs. like your house is yours, not mine. 
that's why when you borrow other people's money, you are expected to pay it back (oftentimes with interest so that they benefit from the transaction), unless they give it to you or loan it to you, how could you be using it legally or even ethically?

In the financial world the term 'other people's money' is NOT used in the context you think it is...

It works like this....

Say I have $20,000 cash on hand in one lump sum. I could put that money in the bank and pay my bills with it. Eventually it would be gone... right?

Well  I have another option....

I can deposit that $20,000 into a long term deposit say 4 years  and earn interest on at at prime rate, and that interest accumulates like a mortgage. (something like 50% over the 4 year term)  So each month your 20K starts to increase

I can then ask for say $15,000 of that to be assigned to a LINE OF CREDIT... 

Since that line of credit is backed by my own cash, any amount of that I use is charges a very small interest rate.  Further more If I say use 10K at the beginning of the month and pay back say 8K before the end of the month I only pay interest on the 2K outstanding balance

THIS is called using other peoples money. The bank is letting ME use the money of other depositors because they have my money in security in case I default

So how does this help you ask?  Well  by simply doing that even before you actually use it  you now have a net worth of 35,000 (I could have set the account for 19K but no need to do so) On top of that because this now bumps your CREDIT RATING very high... (because you have 20K in a secure deposit and you have a 15K line of credit untapped)

That new credit rating means the bank will issue you a premium credit card with a limit of say $3,000 so your net credit worth is now $38,000

Since this is all backed by your own cash, the other people's money is safe and you get to use it for a very low interest rate

Now naturally if you don't pay attention and go out on spending sprees this will soon collapse. However if you are diligent you will have mastered step one of using other people's money

8)

Another use of Other Peoples' Money....

Now THIS one is actually really cool  and can help people get out of the hole and rebuild good credit.

It requires TWO things to work

1) A small steady income

2) A strong will!   8)

If you do not have #2 you can use a friend or relative to be your will


I am going to use 10 for the demo, because it is easy to work with and easier to track for the beginner

Sure this will NOT work if you do not have #1  It's not a magic cure  :P  But for those who can meet condition #1 and # 2 this CAN make a huge difference

It works like this...

You need $500.00   You need to be able to put aside about $120 a month. You will NOT lose this money, you only need to be able to put it aside for about 12 months

Step One:  Get a credit card!!!   8)

Okay not just ANY credit card... You need to find one that has NO ANNUAL FEE... there are hundreds available

When you get this credit card... you will GIVE THEM the $500.00 to hold as a secured payment on that card.  They will then issue you a card that has a $500.00 credit limit (many will issue you one that has a $750 limit but if your credit is in the toilet expect only the $500.00)

There will be NO approvals, qualifications, checks etc needed because your card is a SECURED card. It is secured by your own cash

Step 2:   

Take that credit card to a bank machine and withdraw a cash advance of $500.00  (You may need to add a few bucks here depending on the transaction fees etc but that is only a few dollars)

So at this point you have

1) One secured credit card with a $500 limit
2) One bank account with $500 cash in it (but you cannot withdraw that yet)
3) $500 cash from the ATM

Effectively you have 1500.00 (1000.00 of which is other peoples money)

Step 3:

Go get a second secured credit card, then repeat Step 2

At this point you now have..

1) TWO secured credit cards with a limit of $500 each ($1000)
2) TWO bank accounts each with $500 ($1000) (you CANNOT withdraw this yet)
3) $500 cash from the 2nd ATM

At this point your initial $500 (give or take a few bucks for fees) has become $2500 of CREDIT VALUE

At this point it has not cost you any interest and you still have your initial $500 in your pocket

At this point if you did nothing, you would lose NOTHING.

Do this until you have TEN secured cards.

Then take those 10 cards and either lock them in a safe, cut them up or give them to a friend to hold on to for you. (this is the 'strong will' part


Now at the end of the month you will get 10 bills for the minimum payment on each card... This is were the small income comes in.  You MUST pay that minimum amount (it will usually be $5-15 depending on the terms of the card. You can shop around for the best cards if you want)

So what is the purpose of this? What is the benefit?

Well EFFECTIVELY it is a forced saving plan :D AND it INSTANTLY fixes your credit score because IF you make those small minimum payments on time you will have 10 secured cards showing A+ credit reports. Trust me your score will LEAP up as soon as you make that 1st payment

At the end of 12 months of making those small payments something magic happens.You will find that the banks will now consider you a non risk and no longer require the cards to be secured. They will also automatically DOUBLE the credit limit

So at the end of 12 months you will have;

1) 10 credit cards with a limit of $1000 each ($10,000)
2) 10 bank accounts with $500 each ($5,000)
3) A very good credit rating with 20 accounts in good standing

Yes you can now withdraw that money, after all it is YOURS because you paid off the card debt to YOU.

8)


Now I learned this from a real estate broker...  he took this method to a higher level

What he did is he had 200 of these cards. He would find a property that was cheap... make an offer on it with a deposit (this gives you 90 days to come up with financing. If you don't come up with financing the offer comes off but you lose $1000)

So he would find the right property, use the ATM to withdraw the down payment from his shoebox full of cards... and make the deal

He would then find a buyer (usually he had some waiting)

So before he had to make the first payment on those cards he would have already sold it to another buyer.

He was never greedy but would flip them for 10-30K profit, pay off those cards and be all set to do it again

THAT is using Other People's Money.

It is LEGAL. Everyone wins and THAT is how the rich get richer  :P

Quote from: zorgon on October 19, 2014, 10:34:29 AM
Another use of Other Peoples' Money....

Now THIS one is actually really cool  and can help people get out of the hole and rebuild good credit.

It requires TWO things to work

1) A small steady income

2) A strong will!   8)

If you do not have #2 you can use a friend or relative to be your will


I am going to use 10 for the demo, because it is easy to work with and easier to track for the beginner

Sure this will NOT work if you do not have #1  It's not a magic cure  :P  But for those who can meet condition #1 and # 2 this CAN make a huge difference

It works like this...

You need $500.00   You need to be able to put aside about $120 a month. You will NOT lose this money, you only need to be able to put it aside for about 12 months

Step One:  Get a credit card!!!   8)

Okay not just ANY credit card... You need to find one that has NO ANNUAL FEE... there are hundreds available

When you get this credit card... you will GIVE THEM the $500.00 to hold as a secured payment on that card.  They will then issue you a card that has a $500.00 credit limit (many will issue you one that has a $750 limit but if your credit is in the toilet expect only the $500.00)

There will be NO approvals, qualifications, checks etc needed because your card is a SECURED card. It is secured by your own cash

Step 2:   

Take that credit card to a bank machine and withdraw a cash advance of $500.00  (You may need to add a few bucks here depending on the transaction fees etc but that is only a few dollars)

So at this point you have

1) One secured credit card with a $500 limit
2) One bank account with $500 cash in it (but you cannot withdraw that yet)
3) $500 cash from the ATM

Effectively you have 1500.00 (1000.00 of which is other peoples money)

Step 3:

Go get a second secured credit card, then repeat Step 2

At this point you now have..

1) TWO secured credit cards with a limit of $500 each ($1000)
2) TWO bank accounts each with $500 ($1000) (you CANNOT withdraw this yet)
3) $500 cash from the 2nd ATM

At this point your initial $500 (give or take a few bucks for fees) has become $2500 of CREDIT VALUE

At this point it has not cost you any interest and you still have your initial $500 in your pocket

At this point if you did nothing, you would lose NOTHING.

Do this until you have TEN secured cards.

Then take those 10 cards and either lock them in a safe, cut them up or give them to a friend to hold on to for you. (this is the 'strong will' part


Now at the end of the month you will get 10 bills for the minimum payment on each card... This is were the small income comes in.  You MUST pay that minimum amount (it will usually be $5-15 depending on the terms of the card. You can shop around for the best cards if you want)

So what is the purpose of this? What is the benefit?

Well EFFECTIVELY it is a forced saving plan :D AND it INSTANTLY fixes your credit score because IF you make those small minimum payments on time you will have 10 secured cards showing A+ credit reports. Trust me your score will LEAP up as soon as you make that 1st payment

At the end of 12 months of making those small payments something magic happens.You will find that the banks will now consider you a non risk and no longer require the cards to be secured. They will also automatically DOUBLE the credit limit

So at the end of 12 months you will have;

1) 10 credit cards with a limit of $1000 each ($10,000)
2) 10 bank accounts with $500 each ($5,000)
3) A very good credit rating with 20 accounts in good standing

Yes you can now withdraw that money, after all it is YOURS because you paid off the card debt to YOU.

8)


Now I learned this from a real estate broker...  he took this method to a higher level

What he did is he had 200 of these cards. He would find a property that was cheap... make an offer on it with a deposit (this gives you 90 days to come up with financing. If you don't come up with financing the offer comes off but you lose $1000)

So he would find the right property, use the ATM to withdraw the down payment from his shoebox full of cards... and make the deal

He would then find a buyer (usually he had some waiting)

So before he had to make the first payment on those cards he would have already sold it to another buyer.

He was never greedy but would flip them for 10-30K profit, pay off those cards and be all set to do it again

THAT is using Other People's Money.

It is LEGAL. Everyone wins and THAT is how the rich get richer  :P

so something like this could be used to help thor save his house? but who can buy it, if no one knows who has the title?  would suck to buy a house and then be told you had no legal right to own it because the title didn't belong to the seller 

Quote from: undo11 on October 19, 2014, 12:47:32 PM
so something like this could be used to help thor save his house?

In theory yes... but it may be too late now  His battle has been going on for a long time. I did point this out to him some time ago

Quotebut who can buy it, if no one knows who has the title?  would suck to buy a house and then be told you had no legal right to own it because the title didn't belong to the seller

THAT is a problem. If you cannot establish clear title, I have no idea what can be done


My friend across the street fell off a ladder (he is(was) a sign installer) This put him in the hospital for 6 months and his legs are still not up to snuff.

Well that started a cascade of events...

First he had no income so house payments were not being made. Then his lady left him because there was no more money.  On top of that his boss, already considering retiring, used this as an excuse to close the business and he moved to Arizona

Now just before the accident, my friend had taken out a loan against the equity to buy a new truck.  At the time property values were high...   but shortly after the economy crashed and house values dropped drastically...

Now he too made a deal with the banks trying to keep the house...  but they sold it out from under him while saying they were still working it out. The first he knew it was sold was when the new owner came to look at it expecting it to be empty

He fought it and got some extra time to move out... but in the end he did have to leave or lose all his stuff. Fortunately the new owner did not want any trouble so it worked out okay.

Thing was that by this time he had not made ANY payments for 18 months.

Well  I got him into the Teamster convention business. Took a bit of doing because hiring was slow at that time...  (he basically replaced me as I was leaving due to my legs)

I talked with him for a long time on this. It is not easy to convince someone that they are better off leaving the house and starting over.

But in this case the NUMBERS won out

He basically owed 185 K on the house. He had taken out a loan of 45 K to pay for the truck.   At the time of the take over the property was values at only 85 K

So to make up 18 months of payments and try to save an over inflated property when you are just getting back on your feet made no sense. Since he was now single anyway it would be better to 'cut and run'


So after several weeks of discussion, he realized that if he let the bank take it, THEY would lose the 100K value anyway and HE would be clear of all responsibility and debt... a true fresh start

So in the end he did walk away.

He found a new place that was being rented by an old couple.  It was a large property with a huge truck garage. They told him he could rent to buy...

So end result... He walked away from all that debt,  he walked away from a property he owed twice what it was worth AND he had a brand new truck paid for in cash (effectively the bank bought it for him :P )

Since he now was starting that new Teamster job ($22.00 an hour to start)  had a new place to stay that he could purchase over time, and had a paid for truck... he now had an instant new start

Sometimes walking away iand finding a new place is the best solution

Twice before in my life I have walked away from a property because the property devalued. Most people expect property to INCREASE in value but that doesn't always happen

The first one was in Winnepeg.... I then moved back to Toronto.  The second one was in Oshawa ( just outside Toronto)  The GM plant closed doors and that killed the town... We were hoping to sell and have the money to move to the US but we ended up having to walk because the property value dropped from 140 K to 50K over night...

We did move to the US but it took all our savings and we had to rent an apartment in a low rent district till we got a new start


This house we currently own.... we paid 142 K in 2000.  We had moved to the US in 1993   It took that long to recover enough to get a down payment and clear bad debt.

When the boom hit the value went to 325 K  I probably should have sold but you still need a place to live so nothing gained

Then the crash came. Our house, like my friend's, dropped in value to 85K as well (maybe a little more as we have a corner lot) but we still owed 135K on it at the time)

Now today finally the pendulum is swinging back... Got a real estate broker saying he has  buyers that are looking and we could get 185 K again and we only owe 111K now.  I am hoping this stays stable for a while. I don't want to have to walk a third time  I am too old to start over  :P

A word on refinancing....


We get a lot of offers to refinance at a lower rate. We are told that thanks to Obama there is NO FEE for refinancing.

Now we are currently at 6.9% interest.  They are offering 3.5% but it usually will end up at 4.5%ish anyway.

What they DON'T TELL YOU is that if you refinance you are going to start all over again paying mostly interest.

In my case we are almost at 15 years of a 30 year mortgage... so at this point 50% of the monthly payment is going to the principal and we can see a  significant monthly drop in what we owe

Now when they offer refinancing they say our monthly payments will drop  (1,000 now will drop to $5-600)   Well of course it will drop  because you are spreading it out over another extra 15 years and those fees they are not charging? Well you will be paying mostly interest again and your principal will not drop

They also recommend you drop the FHA coverage to drop your monthly rate...

Well no thanks.  At this time I will continue with the FHA coverage as it does protect you and you do bank a large amount of it.

IF you are in danger of loosing your home  and a 50% reduction in monthly expense will make the difference of you keeping or losing your home  then YES by all means refinance.  You need a place to live after all and longer payments are no different from paying rent  at least you can stay put. But if you can continue the same payment  then do not refinance... you will lose a lot in new interest.

When I reach 65 and collect social security that will be the time I drop the FHA and cash in on that  FHA bank and apply it to the house.  Because at that point the SS will be enough to cover the mortgage and dropping the FHA will drop it to about 800.00

But that is 3 years away and things are tight right now. May have to rent out a room again for awhile   8)

well they are saying the housing market grinded to a halt when the 50 states and their attorney generals were expecting the banks to come up with titles for the houses they were foreclosing on, and they couldn't, because they had already sold them (several times over) to mortgage backed securities, in big bundles, for investors on wall street. 

so dunno if buyers should be buying houses right now as they might be forced to come up with title, themselves, and won't be able to because the title is lost in some globalist labyrinth