Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

Okay, I know I said I’d reserve this site for only my own thoughts, but if I hadn’t read this guy’s article first, I’d have ended up saying exactly these same things on my own anyway!


From the famous “Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole,” Christopher Cantwell:

Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You

People often complain about libertarians being rude and obnoxious. It’s not nearly as widespread a problem as some would make it out to be, and contrary to popular belief, this did not begin with me. To the extent that it does exist, I have become to many this sort of picture of the asshole libertarian who doesn’t give a shit about your feelings or opinions. So I figured I’d put this list together of why libertarians aren’t nice to you. Even libertarians who are nice to you, I think will get a kick out of it, because despite their outward appearances, they are every bit as frustrated with your statism as we are. Feel free to bookmark it and produce it every time you hear someone make this complaint.

Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You Because,

The Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice To You

10. Ridicule works.

Believe me when I tell you, we would really prefer it if mankind were a rational creature that responded to reason and evidence. If that were the case, we would have already won this debate, and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The State would not exist, and there would be no political arguments pertaining to it.

What we have observed from watching your elections and propagandists, is that there’s more of a “that guy sucks so you should support me!” type of psychology behind all of this. Leftists call everybody who opposes them fascists, and racists, and religious nuts, and homophobes, and greedy. Rightists call everybody who opposes them socialists, and enemies of God, they promote xenophobia about homosexuals, and immigrants, and foreign countries that they want to go to war with.

It’s unfortunate that this has become the nature of political discord, but that’s the reality we are met with. You folks have obtained such wonderful political success by being completely miserable towards one another, so we figure this is how to win political battles. Thus, we are sort of compelled to work within it. We make fun of you, because that is the nature of political discussions that we have been met with. We tear down your leaders and your people because they promote terrible ideas, and we don’t want people to take you seriously.

9. If you already have an ideology, we’re actually not terribly concerned with convincing you.

Most people have no concept of politics, economics, or philosophy. If they take an interest in these subjects because of something we said, or because they are genuinely interested in finding some kind of objective truth, then we have some hope of bringing them over to our side. Those are the people we are primarily interested in convincing.

stubbornMost people involved in these things aren’t actually interested in finding any sort of objective truth. As far as we’re concerned, the fact that they aren’t already libertarians is evidence enough of this. They chose a side for whatever reason, and they represent their team for better or worse. Liberals don’t tend to become conservatives, conservatives don’t tend to become liberals, and neither tend to become libertarians. At best for us, they try to get libertarians to assist them in their own anti-libertarian political agendas, and they’ve done an excellent job of accomplishing this. Trying to work with you then, generally ends up hurting us, and we’ve learned this lesson too many times to ignore it.

Having an ideology tends to imply some study of the subject at hand. If you have studied government, and determined that it has any potential to do anything positive, this implies you are really not very good at processing information. The failures of the State are so numerous and ridiculously obvious, that we find it difficult to believe any rational person could justify its existence. Your informed adherence to this absurdity tells us that you are pretty much beyond all hope of rescue.

So when libertarians argue with you, it’s not you we’re trying to convince. We’re doing it for the sake of others who might be watching. It gives us the opportunity to put information out there, and while you reject fact, after fact, after fact, we try to make you look like idiots so that others who may be watching have a negative opinion of you and your ideas, so that they do not join your cause and advance them.

voting8. We’re not trying to win elections

Any libertarian who tells you he is trying to win an election is either lying to you about trying to win the election, lying to us about being a libertarian, or terribly misinformed. As far as we’re concerned, elections are a bad thing. We’re trying to end them, not win them.

The nature of the State is to make false promises to bait support from the people it victimizes. They promise to protect you from boogeymen, they promise to solve your economic problems, they promise to carry out the will of your deity. We see this as completely ridiculous, we know it will fail, and we know that most people are stupid enough to swallow it hook line and sinker, so we can’t compete with it in a popular vote.

Libertarians are anarchists, whether they realize it or not. Even the ones who are delusional enough to think that they are going to get elected and restore the bloody republic, are little more than useful idiots who are repeating anarchist propaganda for us through channels normally reserved for government. The goal is not to win your elections, the goal is to turn a large enough minority against the legitimacy of the State as to make its continued function impossible. So there’s absolutely no incentive to work with you in promoting candidates, which is the primary function of your political activity. You’re right when you say “No candidate is good enough” for us, no matter who runs for office we will tear him down because nobody has the right to be our ruler.

repetitive7. We’ve already had this discussion a hundred times

If you had ever bothered to study the works of any of the great libertarian theorists, you wouldn’t be asking us the questions you are asking. You ask “Who will build the roads?” or “What about defense?” you tell us “There is no such thing as utopia” and a lot of other really tired arguments. It shows us that you haven’t taken so much as 10 minutes out of your miserable life to even make the slightest effort to understand what we are proposing.

In the meantime, we are always staying tuned to the propaganda you consume so that we can counter it. We write thoughtful articles, and make informative videos, and produce compelling audio content that explains in great detail what exactly it is your politicians and propagandists are saying, and why it is wrong.

You don’t pay any attention to any of that content because it’s not coming from “your team”, and everyone on “your team” repeats the same propaganda. So every time we get into a political argument, we already know what you’re going to say as soon as we know which team you’re on. We already know what the proper response to your propaganda is, and we already know that you are going to act irrationally when we respond. This is extraordinarily frustrating, because we’ve actually put a great deal of effort into this, and these repetitive arguments are tiring, especially when they yield no results. All those “what ifs” you’re so concerned about, they’re called choices.

The nice thing about freedom is, people get to make their own decisions. We’re not entirely sure why this bothers you so much. Every time you ask us “What if X?” we have a thousand different answers we can give you, if you don’t like the first one, we’re happy to give you another. The whole point is, you get to decide for yourself what suits you best in a market environment.

You have become so used to the State being the arbiter of all things, that you seem to panic at every uncertainty. The funny part about this is, the State hasn’t provided you with any certainty at all. There’s absolute chaos in the world, governments have murdered over 260 million of their own citizens in the last century, not including war, and you’re still freaking out about speed limits.

misescharacterlimit5. I can’t teach you economics in 140 characters or less

The nice thing about the internet is, it allows us to communicate with many people very quickly. The downside is that this instant gratification has led people to believe answers will just be fed to them without any effort. If you really think that you’re qualified to walk into a voting booth and decide who will run the world and how, then you should have the common decency to study economics first.

All these discussions we’re having really boil down to economics. Your politicians and propagandists feed off of your prejudices and religious ideas and emotions because that’s the easiest way to manipulate you into acting against your own best interests. These tactics allow them to operate in a soundbite world and oversimplify matters. For us to explain to you what’s wrong with those soundbites actually requires some understanding of how human beings respond to incentives in a market environment. We produce thousands of pages of text, and countless hours of audio and video explaining these things. The best we can hope for in a tweet is to link you to some of it and hope you read/listen/watch, but you never do, do you?

IQ4. We actually are smarter than you

The Triple Nine Society, an organization whose membership is reserved for people with IQ’s in the top one tenth of one percent, even more discriminating than Mensa, did a survey on the politics of its members. The results don’t surprise us. Members overwhelmingly supported legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and gambling. They supported gun rights, and free markets. They opposed government involvement in medicine, and income taxes.

Government is a scam, and like other scams it relies on the gullibility of its victims. We’re not falling for it, but you are, and your support of that system harms us. Your stupidity literally hurts.

morality23. Our moral superiority is justified

We know that you have some pretty twisted ideas on morality that stem from religious doctrines and other ancient texts, but logically speaking, morality should be consistent. If your moral platform can’t be applied universally, then it really doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

That’s why your politicians, religious leaders, and propagandists are always getting caught doing things that go against the words they speak. Priests get caught having gay sex, socialists acquire vast amounts of wealth, “family values” candidates get caught cheating on their wives, gun control advocates murder millions of people. Their moral platforms are inconsistent, this makes them rather meaningless, and so there is no reason for them to adhere thereto.

Our moral platform is basically just the non initiation of force. As long as we don’t rob, assault, kidnap, and murder, we’re perfectly within our moral code. This is pretty easy for most people, since violence doesn’t appeal to us, and so we rarely end up looking like hypocrites.

ron-paul-alone2. We’re not asking for much

If you want to have people threaten you all the time and tell you what to do, that’s your business. We don’t recommend it or anything, but really you’re more than welcome to submit to someone else’s authority in the absence of the State. We might talk to you about the virtues of freedom, but we’re honestly not trying to force you to be free. All we’re saying is you have no right to force us under the same authority.

By contrast, you want to take our property, force us into wars, “educate” our children, and control our business and personal relationships. You have some really weird idea in your head that this notion of “government” makes that okay, but there is no other circumstance in which you would consider that socially acceptable. We don’t believe in government, so we look at this like any other lunatic trying to do these things to us.

Seriously, what the fuck? Just leave me alone.

riot-police_9-2-081. You always resort to violence

Polite discussion in State politics is an illusion. At the end of this discussion, it really doesn’t matter who’s right or who’s wrong, the person with the superior numbers is going to force their bad ideas on everybody else at gun point. Just imagine doing this in reverse, where you start with a threat instead of ending with it. Nobody would try to be polite about their disagreement under those circumstances.

Since we know we have inferior numbers, and the minority always gets screwed and threatened by democracy, this is exactly what this discussion looks like to us. It begins and ends with the threat of violence, so the fact that we don’t shoot you in the face really speaks volumes to our civility.

You give us absolutely no option for escaping this violence. We are forced to choose between the violence of you, or the violence of someone else. You tell us “Love it or leave it!” or “Move to Somalia!” like I don’t have any right to be left in peace in my own home. The fact of the matter is, if you give us a choice of violence or violence, eventually we’re going to give some violence back to you, and making fun of you on twitter will become the least of your concerns.

Posted in Corruption, Crime, economics, Education, Globalization, gun control, human rights, Legal, media, Policy, politics, Privacy, proglodyte, progressive, propaganda, Regulation, religion, Treason, Uncategorized, War | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Fjordman: The Folly of Open Borders

From here:

We Europeans do not have an obligation to destroy ourselves. Africans, Muslims and others are adults and should be able to fix their own problems. Moreover, Europe and the wider Western world simply don’t have the strength to fix all of the problems of Africa, the Islamic countries and the rest of the developing world, even if we wanted to.

The Folly of Open Borders

“There will be free movement, country to country. Globalization in its purest form should not have any boundaries…”– Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh. (Both of her children live in North America.)

Posted By Fjordman On February 19, 2014  In Daily Mailer,FrontPage  Comments

1348336233_0-450x337Ceuta is one of two small Spanish enclaves in North Africa, the second being Melilla. They provide the only possible entry to European territory without leaving Africa. Ceuta is separated from the Iberian Peninsula by the Strait of Gibraltar, and lies at the strategically important boundary between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. 1300 years ago, Muslims used it as a staging ground for their invasion of the Iberian Peninsula and their aggressive inroads into Europe. The tide took centuries to turn, but in 1415 the Portuguese conquered Ceuta. This event marked the beginning of half a millennium of European dynamism and global expansion.


It is ironic that Ceuta is now once again at the front lines. This time we are witnessing the retreat and decline of Europe, and the demographic expansion of Africa and the Islamic world. As one member of Spain’s maritime rescue services commented in late 2013: “It has been a very busy summer, because we’re now also rescuing Africans who not only cross in a toy boat but haven’t even spent money on buying proper oars.”

Apart from scaling the fences at Ceuta and Melilla, other common routes into Europe are by boat, sometimes via Spain’s Canary Islands off the Atlantic coast of North Africa, but more frequently to Mediterranean islands such as Italy’s Lampedusa. Some also enter Europe from the east, via the Greek islands. Greece has a huge problem with illegal immigrants, many of them Muslims coming from as far east as Afghanistan.

The tiny island of Malta, which is a member of the EU, has already received tens of thousands of illegal immigrants coming in by boat. Many of the arrivals hail from the poorest and most war-torn parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Their arrival constitutes a heavy burden for such a small nation.

On February 6 2014, at least 14 illegal immigrants, most of them sub-Saharan Africans, died while trying to swim from Morocco to the Spanish enclave of Ceuta. The Spanish government’s local delegate said that the migrants were “aggressive” and began throwing rocks. Civil Guard officials used anti-riot gear to dissuade them from rushing the border, yet about 200 attempted to swim around the seawall. Sources said that the migrants stampeded, some stepping on others on the beach, as they jumped into the sea. Authorities said the police in Ceuta used rubber bullets to ward them off, but that they fired them in the air and did not target anyone directly. “We did not use anti-riot equipment when the immigrants were in the water.”

Meanwhile, the number of illegal immigrants landing in Italy rose tenfold in January 2014, the country’s deputy interior minister said. “In 2013, Italy was subjected to an incessant and massive influx of migrants from North Africa and the Middle East,” Filippo Bubico told parliament. Throughout 2013, a total of 2,925 vessels of various shapes and sizes landed on Italian shores, carrying about 43,000 people. This represented a rise of 325 per cent in just one year. Reality is increasingly imitating fiction, with boatloads of people coming from the south to Europe, just as described in Jean Raspail’s novel The Camp of the Saints from 1973.

In early February 2014, more than 1,000 migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean in nine overcrowded rafts and dinghies were rescued by the Italian navy within the space of just 24 hours. The vessels, in which approximately 1,120 people were packed tightly, were first spotted in waters south of Sicily by Italian military helicopters attached to naval ships. Once reached by naval patrol vessels, the migrants were given life jackets and transferred to a larger ship. It is thought they were trying to reach Lampedusa, Italy’s southernmost island. The turmoil in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring, the civil war in Syria and instability in Africa has led to a sharp increase in the number of illegal immigrants trying to reach European shores.

The German professor of sociology Gunnar Heinsohn worries about the “demographic capitulation” of European nations. He fears that their low birth rates will lead to the collapse of the welfare state. Immigration from Third World nations cannot solve this problem; it only makes it worse. He does not believe that material aid to countries with large youth populations will prevent violence and terror. On the contrary, it may fuel more unrest. Over the course of five generations (1900-2000), the population in predominantly Muslim countries grew from 150 million to 1200 million — an increase of 800 per cent. This growth still continues. Heinsohn notes that Western countries are funding the Palestinian population explosion, for instance. He thinks that we must cease this support. He also believes that the West should stay out of the affairs of Muslim countries with expanding populations as much as possible. We should only interfere briefly if they threaten us directly.

It’s true that birth rates do not remain static. Even in some Muslim countries, birth rates are now lower than they were a few years ago. However, they are still substantially higher than those in virtually all European nations.

We don’t know exactly what the population was in the entire Roman Empire in the first century of our era. However, estimates typically range between 50 million and 80 million people, perhaps a little bit more, perhaps a little bit less. By comparison, it was estimated by 2013 that the global population grew by around 75 millionpeople annually. This means that the world’s total population is now growing by roughly another Roman Empire, every single year. Most of this rapid growth is concentrated in dysfunctional and technologically backward societies.

The continent of Africa today houses a population larger than that of the continent of Europe. This has not happened for thousands of years. Already today, African and Muslim illegal immigrants are fleeing from their own failed societies to get into Europe, sometimes risking their lives by literally swimming to European shores.

A report from 2013 predicted that sub-Saharan Africa will record the largest population growth between now and 2050. According to the Population Reference Bureau, the world’s poorest region will more than double in population, from 1.1 billion to 2.4 billion. The entire population of the European Union is about 500 million people. It is estimated that Africa’s population will grow by at least twice that much, in just two generations. Where are these people supposed to live? Will they have water, food and work at home? If not, where will they go next?

Western governments and human rights organizations seem to treat the huge influx of illegal immigrants as some kind of natural disaster, something that will pass. It’s not. It’s an ongoing process, which keeps getting worse and worse. Europe’s misfortune is that it is situated right at the doorstep of the world’s most dysfunctional continent – Africa – and the world’s most dysfunctional cultural sphere, the Islamic world.

By 2014 Muslim-dominated Bangladesh was estimated to house perhaps 165 million people, a number that keeps growing by a couple of million annually. In 2000, the then Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the country was going to feed, house and employ the expected doubling of its population by 2050. She replied: “We’ll send them to America. Globalisation will take that problem away, as you free up all factors of production, also labour. There’ll be free movement, country to country. Globalisation in its purest form should not have any boundaries, so small countries with big populations should be able to send population to countries with big boundaries and small populations.”

Sheikh Hasina was again Prime Minister of Bangladesh in early 2014. Coincidentally, both of her children live in North America.

Hasina is essentially arguing that her nation needs more Lebensraum, and that other countries should accept this. The Nazis wanted more Lebensraum for Germans. This was seen as evil, and other Europeans fought them. Why are they now supposed to meekly accept more Lebensraum for Pakistanis, Egyptians, Nigerians or Bangladeshis in Europe? Despite their flaws, the Germans have at the very least shown themselves capable of maintaining a science-based industrial economy. That’s not equally the case with Nigerians and Bangladeshis.

We Europeans do not have an obligation to destroy ourselves. Africans, Muslims and others are adults and should be able to fix their own problems. Moreover, Europe and the wider Western world simply don’t have the strength to fix all of the problems of Africa, the Islamic countries and the rest of the developing world, even if we wanted to. We constitute a rapidly shrinking part of the world’s population and economy. Moreover, we have plenty of unemployment, debt and other problems of our own to deal with.

It’s nice to be kind and humanitarian, but the enormous migration waves we are currently facing are unprecedented in recorded human history, both in speed and in sheer numbers. At some point, the issue will no longer be about our humanitarian ideals or feeling good about ourselves. It will be about a fundamental question: Do we want something recognizable as European civilization to exist and flourish a century from now? If so, then the Utopian and dangerously naïve ideal of open borders simply cannot be sustained for much longer.



The muslim ideology is all about hate, revenge, intolerance, violence and lying to gain advantage over your enemy – it’s all about might-makes-right extortion, aka CRIME.

Their religion teaches hate and intolerance, they rape, sodimize, torture and mutilate and kill anyone that will not convert to Islam.

Rape, war and poverty were all endorsed by Muhammad, who called them “holy duties!” Naturally, the poverty bit didn’t apply to him personally.

Islamic “beliefs” include the belief that their god cannot be understood nor reasoned with, (so it might as well not exist at all) only feared and obeyed. They also include the criminal notion that, since Muhammad got away with committing his crimes, (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, many times and, far from ever feeling remorse or apologizing for them, instead encouraged everyone else to join him in committing them, too) then “god” must have wanted him to get away with committing those crimes! So obviously islam is only an ancient yet ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where they say:

“God told us to commit these crimes!”



So why does it now always seem to be “illegal” to accuse these moslem criminals of their crimes, if doing so might hurt their feelings (and so “make” them commit even more crimes!)?
Simply because:

Liberals are racists – they always assume that ONLY White, Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be judged guilty of being truly evil, while all their pet “People Of Colour” (including, of course, the “swarthy palestinians,”) just can’t help being violent animals, the poor oppressed little dears, so they’ll always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.


Multiculturalism IS racism! The reason all the so-called “islamic” countries are at the exact bottom of all the global developmental indexes, can only be EITHER “nurture” (the software programming, education/”cultural” indoctrination) OR “nature” (the hardware, or “race”)!

Since all humans are born tabula rasa (as blank slates) it’s obvious that their islam causes their own suffering; let’s dare to compare:

In reality, it’s all about human reason and an ongoing, dynamic agreement to become situationally right (as in factually correct) as opposed to whining that one should be entitled to the static, idolatrous and victim-blaming right to remain irresponsibly wrong:

We self-reliantly CHOOSE to agree to the Golden Rule of Law, which, by simply defining all situational morality as: “Do Not Attack First!” enables trust, progress, and Civilization.

(See all “Western” countries)!

They force everyone to obey the brazen rule of chaos, which embodies destructive criminal slander and prejudicial immorality as: “Our god says we always have to attack all ‘The Others’ first!” and so inflicts distrust, stagnation, and Barbarism.

(See all ‘moslem’ countries)!


Posted in America, Australia, Canada, Corruption, Crime, economics, Education, Europe, Globalization, human rights, islam, Legal, media, Military, muslim, Policy, politics, Privacy, proglodyte, proglodytes, progressive, progressives, propaganda, Regulation, religion, Technology, Treason, Uncategorized, United Nations, United States, USA, War | Tagged , , | Leave a comment


I’m going to try to keep this site for my own thoughts, and the Vladdi one for sharing interesting pertinent articles. I will, of course, link to the pertinent articles there, from here, and in my commentary there, to here, and vice-versa! (i.e: Here’s Brandon’s article).

This one is in response to an article by Brandon Smith about PC, from here.

So here’s my (book-length LOL) response to him:

Political correctness = factual incorrectness (lying; fraud; CRIME).

What sane people call “the slippery slope,” liberals call “progress!”

Political correctness (slanderous victim-blaming factual incorrectness) is both fraud (crime) and extortion – pretending that, either you lie along with the majority, or you’ll be replaced with a better liar by that same majority; group might makes right! Exact same as communazism.

Deliberately maintaining the LIE that Jihad = “peaceful inner struggle,” against ALL the clear evidence and Qur’anic definitions to the contrary, is not only to wilfully engage in perpetuating the perpetration of the crime of public deception, but to act as a willing accessory enabling all the crimes of our self-determined moslem enemies.

Any lawyer, judge, or politician who enages in such practices is a criminal and an outlaw, and so should be dealt with accordingly.

The cause of the liberals’ perpetual irrational cause-and-effect-hating immmoral relativism is that they see all facts as attacks!

‘ALWAYS DENY EVERYTHING!’ seems to be their motto.

It comes from their belief in the brazen rule of chaos, that since something bad CAN happen, SO it WILL happen, SO they have to “pre-emptively, defensively” (i.e: really slanderously) always attack first!

They believe that all is allowed except for that which is specifically disallowed, which, since nothing can be THAT specific (i.e: “Fat Tony isn’t allowed to kill you today from between 1 and 4 PM!”) really only ever means “If it can happen, it will happen!” This is at the root of the libertine/ muslim’s predeterministic, idolatrous, paranoid fatalism.

This is what’s known as “psychopathy”

(literally: ‘thought-killing’)!

I don’t think the expect to win, since they have no rational arguments to present, they just endeavor to not-lose, by forcing everyone else to “admit” to being spineless relativists, too – for cowardice loves company!


All lefties (communazis, muslims) are really only total(itarian) conformists: extortionist group-might-makes-right collectivists; slanderously victim-blaming gangsters; criminals.

Liberals (and all other criminals) don’t ever really think, situationally – because if they did, they wouldn’t be criminals – they only ever react (by means of infantile delinquent ‘projection;’ i.e: “I know you are, but what am I?”) and attack, because they had long since before now slanderously and “pre-emptively” decided at some point in their lives that everyone was out to get them. So they constructed a simple and ritualistic cookie-cutter like behavioural response pattern to fit all future occasions. And since their message always only amounts to declarations of pure, selfish evil, their pre-programmed, fear-based and almost instinctively reactionary tactics must by necessity always involve messenger-shooting, victim-blaming slander.

Once you’ve been proven factually wrong in public, you can no longer prove yourself right, so there’s only two possible responses left to you: admit it and thank your educator for enlightening you, or evasively try blustering to deflect attention from your mistakes, by distracting people with irrelevant examples of your accuser’s own mistakes, to attempt to “prove” them to be wrong, “too!” i.e: Blame your victims!

This is where people turn mistakes from mere negligence into criminal negligence, more or less by slanderously asserting: “Screw you! I meant to do that, because I knew you were gonna make me do it, so it’s all your fault! Whee!” Then they follow up with “There are no real crimes, because we all do it, too – even you make mistakes!” This is immoral relativism and the false, victim-blaming ‘emotion’ of subjective “jealousy!”

Since they automatically pretend that everything’s relative, there is no real right or wrong, that it’s an absolute fact that there are absolutely no absolute facts, and that, since there’s no real cause and effect (or it’s too complex for any of us mere mortals to ever truly fully discover or understand) then all facts are only opinions, so therefore all the liberals’ entirely fact-free opinions are in reality the diversely opposite equals of the “conservatives’” silly objective facts!

They also thus often prefer to focus on WHO said something, rather than on WHAT was actually said.

So, never having any facts which would ever agree with their perpetual irrationality, the left must always resort to the slanderous evasions known collectively as the critical thinking logical fallacies – the deflective ad-hominem personal attacks, the distractive strawman red-herrings, and of course the immoral relativist’s favorite slander, the argumentum tu quoque – i.e: “Crime isn’t crime, and islam isn’t evil, because we (i.e: you) all do it too! Whee!” As if simply comparing many different categories of wrong, somehow made one of them into a right!

Isn’t it funny that people who actually have facts, rarely (if ever) seem to feel the need to indulge in fallacies?


The left has to have “victims” to defend or their lives are just not worth a dime. In their zero-sum world, they can’t imagine making themselves safe and happy, but maybe it’d work for others. Still, if the leftists couldn’t find (or create) groups of oppressed victims to defend, they’d have to get real jobs and actually work for a living! Out-sourcing and projecting their adversarial needs onto “deserving victim groups” might magically transform them from whiny losers into altruistically committed “crusaders for social justice!”

Bear in mind that they will also remain too afraid to accuse any real, potentially dangerous live human criminals of their crimes, and so must in stead always restrict them selves to accusing group idols, and that always means introducing fact-free, cause-and-effect reversed relativism into the equation: all real live criminals must be seen to be helpless victims of some other group’s historical oppressions, for it to work.

And this is also of course why they will always back the aggressors (muslims and other criminals) ‘rights,’ and always attack the non-violent (Christians and Jews) – because there’s no personal risk in it for them, and lots of public support available for such actions for them among the ever-present criminal elements.

And, by aligning them selves with, and championing, some unrelated group’s historic oppression narrative, they can give free rein to their own propensity for attacking everyone first, by rationalizing it as really only being an ongoing, defensive counter-attack (attacking second). Their opinions, they pretend, get to define the actual start of the conflict, and when and where some group is deemed to be in a ‘minority’ status (Blacks, for instance, outnumber Whites worldwide, but not yet, say, at the North Pole. So a liberal would pretend to be perfectly justified in slandering all Whites at the North Pole as being racist oppressors). Also note: the liberals’ defense of the minority will never result in improved conditions for that minority, as the liberals will instead insist said minority will have no obligation to improve themselves, but must in stead enslave them selves to the liberals’ liberation timetable (i.e: never; Please Give Genersously AGAIN)!

Liberals want to help you.

SO they do NOT want you helping your selves!

This is besides the obvious fact that, when groups get rights, individuals lose theirs along with their responsibilities to them selves and to others. Liberals divide humanity into sub-groups, to conquer it.

The liberal criminals’ chosen stance of irrationality always involves reversing cause and effect, &/or pretending it doesn’t actually exist in the first place. These idolatrous alibis are only excuses for crime.

The left doesn’t want to change things for people, it wants to change people for things like false group (might-made) rights, and maybe even genociding them all for “the environment.”

It’s the same, ages-old “The allah made me do it!” excuse, and liberal relativists love the same sort of thing: “There is no real evil, crimes nor criminals, because we’re all really only helpless victims of society, products of our environments, and slaves of allah. Since there’s such a diverse multiplicity of causes and effects, we can never really know anything for sure, so there might as well be no real causes and effects at all. This means that, since it’s an absolute fact that there are absolutely no absolute facts, and all facts are really only opinions, then our entirely fact-free, subjective liberal opinions are really the diversely opposite equals to your silly objective Conservative facts! Whee!”

“Besides (they go on, using their favorite, critical thinking logical fallacy slander, the Argumentum Tu Quoque) might makes right, so evil isn’t evil and crime isn’t crime because we (i.e: you) all do it, too! Whee!”

And, even if THAT fails (as all fallacies must) they pretend to imagine they still have the “moral high ground” excuse, that of “Since (I agree to Submit to your assertion that) you say you’re better than me, then it’s all your fault; and, since it’s all your fault, then none of it’s my fault, so I’m really still better than you!”

This stance, of course, ignores that deciding to do nothing to prevent other’s criminal extortions – is still a choice.

Everything the left says and does is a critical-thinking logical fallacy, most likely the argumentum qu quoque, i.e: an excuse or evasion for their false right to remain irresponsibly wrong by (usually slanderously) attacking innocent people first. In this way, the false blame they use to accuse them, keeps their victims on the defensive, and so unable to protest or counter-attack them; it’s a fairly successful recipe for crime. The Argumentum is as I stated: “Evil isnt’ evil, and crime isn’t crime, because we (i.e: you) all do it, too!” As if merely comparing two or more wrongs could somehow magically transform one of them into a right (Do two dissociated wrongs make one of them right? No – the only way the ends can ever be used to justify the means, is in defense of one’s self &/or of innocent others; otherwise, the means only ever define the end results – if you lie, murder, and otherwise steal to get your way, in the end you aren’t a great success, but remain only a lying, murdering thief) so the victim-blaming pretense of self-defense is a de-rigeur requirement for their slanderous attacks; such criminal idoltry explains the left’s endless victimology and group-might-makes-rights scenarios. But when groups have rights, all real live individual humans don’t have rights, because non-members of those special groups have less rights; it’s just more guilty-until-never-proven-innocent slander: “Since someone sort of like you may have discriminated or oppressed someone sort of like them in the past, somewhere (but not even necessarily here) we’re going to take from you and give to them!” Or, “You owe me because you earned stuff I didn’t bother to!” It’s still really always only extortion, robbery and crime, with a self-righteous holier-than-thou alibi on top. CAPISCE?

Liberals are all about irresponsibility – after all, what’s left to liberate, here in the West?! We have a (mostly real, sort of) democracy, a mostly stable economy, good enough jobs, no one starves or (usually) freezes to death (unless they’re drunk) etc. So what’s the purpose of their implicitly slanderous title (“liberal”) as if they have to liberate people from evil conservative oppressions?! What they really want, is to be above all human laws; to have the right to remain irresponsibly wrong. The liberal party (we have one up here) should be re-named as “The Irresponsible Party!” … and their motto should, of course, be “Whee!”


They’re definitely all psychopaths (thought-killers) because they have assumed in advance that life is a zero-sum game; that it’s all pain or be pained, fear or be feared, attack first or be attacked first – that everyone’s their enemy, and having hope or even thinking about it is a form of stupidity and madness. In fact, that’s what pretty-much defines them: they will always pre-emptively cancel hope, and focus on their subjective images of the worst-case scenario as if it were already an objective fact; they are static idolaters and cannot really imagine any change, except for the worst (which, as proud masochists, they will then work hard to bring to pass, in order to maintain their illusion of “ethical” control over the immoral crime.

Their masochism is exposed by their “screw you – I meant to do that!” attitudes where they turn every simple mistake and act of negligence, into criminal negligence by reversing cause and effect to blame their victims.

From this, it doesn’t take much to make a habit of “There’s no money in solutions!” as they fail upwards.

In fact, they hate thinking about details, so they always contentiously emote as infantile delinquent children in stead: “It’s never my fault, and it’s always your/some body or some thing else’s fault!”

That’s their de-fault setting, and they will never evolve from it’s self-imposed restrictions; they will always absolutely refuse to learn from their mistakes – ever. They are Adversarial by nature.


Posted in America, Australia, Canada, Corruption, Crime, economics, Education, Europe, Globalization, gun control, human rights, islam, Legal, media, Military, muslim, Policy, politics, Privacy, proglodyte, proglodytes, progressive, progressives, propaganda, Regulation, religion, Treason, Uncategorized, United Nations, United States, USA, War | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Are They Going After Your ‘Safety’ Deposit Box?

My last two posts were about how government is rescinding (“nationalizing”) our property privileges (“rights”) with an eye towards confiscating it all to pay off the massive entitlement debts they’ve been running up for their globalist corporazi sales-master friends in the names of ourselves and our children. The trend continues as their totalitarian conformity, globalized world communism (total criminal extortion) end-game approaches:

From here:

Are They Going After Your ‘Safety’ Deposit Box?

February 12, 2014 by

Are They Going After Your ‘Safety’ Deposit Box?

Cash money now in a “safety” deposit box or anywhere is presumed to be illegal. This is the excuse to seize it, saying it is your burden to prove that you paid taxes on it, that it is not illegal proceeds from drugs or that it is not laundered money.

One bank writes to a customer, “Lessee acknowledges that the safe deposit box is not intended to store without limitations, such things as domestic or foreign currency whether in paper, coin, or other form.”

Why, in the last days of a regime, do governments come so hard after your cash or other assets? Why don’t they just print the paper money?

The answer is that if the government can take from the people, it will have to print less money, thereby extending the life of the system. The government desires, above all, to extend its socialist system. The more paper money that it prints, the shorter the time to the end of the system; because paper money is the rot of the country. The more paper money, the faster the collapse: So confiscation becomes the modus operandi of a dying system. Pension funds are in the political crosshair now.

It isn’t much fun to look forward to impoverishment by the state. Only those who leave the United States will be able to keep a part of their wealth after all the exit taxes. In the 1930s, not many people left Nazi Germany. Most people thought things would get better. They were wrong, much to their sorrow. In time, it was too late to leave. Very few people ever come to the realization that government, with its politicians and its bureaucrats, is organized crime.

Most politicians are members of a secret society, and they hold hands under the table. A large number of politicians belong to a death cult inspired by Satan. They will do anything for themselves against the people they are supposed to represent. Make a pact with the devil, and the price may be too high.


Your money is your property; greenbacks are IOU receipts, but since they’re all uniform and generic in nature, possession of them should be all that counts – especially since the Golden Rule of law, upon which all other laws depend, is most simply put as Do Not Attack First – which means even the largest group, the state, has no right to slanderously (without proof) attack any of its individual human citizen component parts first, i.e: it’s why we are all to be presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty, and not – as victim-blaming group-might-makes-right criminals (liberals, muslims) would have it, “Guilty Until Never Proven Innocent,” which, in reversing the onus of proof, requires us to onerously try to ‘prove a negative,’ which is almost impossible:

Say I assert that you owe me $100. and I don’t have to prove it (I don’t have to show any contract you signed, call any witnesses, or even say when or how you owe me the money) the onus is on you to find some way/s to somehow prove you don’t owe me the money; in this scenario, you are pre-judged as guilty until never proven innocent.

See how that works?

Making such accusations without proof is to assert one’s fact-free opinion is, in fact, a fact – which means you (in this case, the state) is committing fraud or perjury, and fraud against the person is known as the CRIME of slander, libel, &/or ‘defamation.’

Under communism, you have no property rights to own or defend anything – even your life.


Old Wolf

In essence, at this point, everything we own is property of the government, in their opinion. They can seize by asset forfeiture everything, including your person, and use it as they see fit.
Rather than being the owners of the government we have created, we have become its serfs, held down in debt-bondage to a debt that we ourselves did not create. Our lands, our citizenship itself, designed as a bond against the government powers, has been seized by that government and turned into bonds against us.
We cannot simultaneously be those who create government, and its slaves. We can be one or the other, and if the government asserts the powers of ownership over us, we are owned by it, should we acquiesce to their bondage.

paendragon Old Wolf

Yes, it’s still the oldest sin still at work – Idolatry:

Humans have problems because when they imagine a generalization or grouping is something new, with new properties its individual component parts don’t possess on their own, they err.

Corporations are treated as (“legal fictions of the corporate”) persons, and unions have ‘rights’ to force you to join them and to force you to pay them money.

‘Government,’ and ‘National Security,’ become the idols (idealized ideas) we are now expected to slavishly serve, not merely – as in reality they stll are – only the people we hired (‘elected’) to run our one largest, collectively-owned insurance company.

Many of our false idols (idealized ideas) are irrationally abstracted away from their situational, circumstantial context, often pretending mere effects are their own causes, or ignoring rational cause and effect altogether.

For instance: “Freedom!” Er – “freedom” FROM – what?! “Feedom!” TO – what?!

Libertine “liberal” criminals love the “Freedom!” idol, because, to them, it means the freedom to commit their crimes without being held responsible for them; most idolatry is caused or enhanced by the false notions of pre-determinism and victimology: they claim they are helpless “victims of society, mere products of their environments, and slaves of allah!” Same with all synonyms, like “Liberty!”

Same with when they use metaphors, because, unlike analogies, which are phrased as “this is LIKE this,” metaphors are inherently lies, because they are phrased “this IS that!”

Posted in America, Australia, Canada, Corruption, Crime, economics, Europe, Globalization, human rights, Legal, media, Military, Policy, politics, Privacy, progressive, propaganda, Regulation, Treason, Uncategorized, United Nations, United States, USA, War | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Canada’s Supreme Criminals legalize extortion

From the Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday February 11, 2014, Pp.#A1, A2, and here:

‘Legal odyssey’ ends in victory for unions

Tax auditor’s ‘legal odyssey’ ends with Supreme Court affirming rights (to your money) of labour unions


OTTAWA — Bureaucrat Elizabeth Bernard lost a 23-year battle to stop her employer, the Canada Revenue Agency, from giving her home address and phone number to public service unions in a Supreme Court ruling that reaffirms labour’s rights and responsibilities.

In a majority decision, The Supreme Court of Canada found that providing home contact information didn’t breach her privacy rights or her Charter right to freedom of association or its flip side, the freedom not to associate, and not belong to a union.

“In our view the compelled disclosure of home contact information in order to allow a union to carry out its representational obligations to all bargaining unit members does not engage violate Ms. Bernard’s freedom not to associate with the union,” said the ruling.”

It took them only 23 years to come up with a decision which is Dead Wrong!

In a ruling released Friday, the high court upheld a Public Service Labour Relations Board’s decision that CRA had to provide home contact information for all employees in a bargaining unit so a union can fulfil its representational duties.

Providing Ms. Bernard’s home contact information to the union was reasonably found by the board to be a necessary incident of the union’s representational obligations to her as a member of the bargaining unit. Based, on the court’s jurisprudence, therefore, Ms. Bernard’s freedom from association has no legal claim.”

The two dissenting judges also rejected her argument that disclosure of information would violate her freedom not to associate.

Bernard, a tax auditor at CRA, wanted to keep her personal information from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), the union that represented tax auditors. She exercised her right not to join the union but as a “Rand formula member” she had to pay dues for the benefits of union representation.

She argued the disclosure of her home address and phone number breached her privacy rights and her right not to associate with the union.

Unions called the decision a “significant victory” for union rights and responsibilities, especially in what they see as a hostile labour environment. They are facing legislation with new rules for certifying and decertifying unions and mandatory disclosure of financial transactions, including political activities. At the same time, proposals are being floated to scrap the Rand formula and bring in “right to work” legislation that would make union dues optional.

Peter Engelmann, a lawyer representing PIPSC, said the ruling reaffirms the union rights enshrined in the landmark cases, such as Lavigne, which upheld mandatory union dues and the Advance Cutting and Coring case, which upheld mandatory union membership in the Quebec construction industry.


If successful, Bernard’s challenge could have significantly reduced the threshold for workers to invoke the Charter’s freedom not to associate with unions, opening the door for opting out of unions and of paying dues.

“This case is much broader than Elizabeth Bernard. This is a case about the responsibilities of trade unions to represent all individuals in the bargaining units for which they are certified. The court has recognized unions’ duties and why being able to communicate is so important for them,” said Engelmann.


“We have a right to your money, and you have a right to pay us! Fair, no?”

If only  all extortionist gangster criminals could be so lucky, eh mon freres?


The court also concluded the disclosure of home contact information didn’t breach the Privacy Act because the union’s use of it was “consistent” with the employment reasons that CRA collected the information for in the first place.

Sure – your work has your home address etc to contact you, and now so do these criminals, so everyone should be allowed to have it, just for “consistency!”

The government and union had also agreed to 15 safeguards to ensure the information was protected and only used as intended.

Right: because governments and unions contain no fallible criminal humans!

Bernard’s battle, described by the court as a “legal odyssey,” wound through three labour board hearings, and two judicial reviews in the Federal Court of Appeal before landing at Canada’s highest court. It attracted much attention in legal and labour circles, including a dozen interveners in the case for the Supreme Court’s hearing. Bernard represented herself.

Bernard’s battle first began in 1991 when she began working at the tax agency and refused to join her union, but this case dated to 2005 when the Public Service Labour Relations Act was amended and expanded the representational duties of unions. That’s when PIPSC decided to get contact information from employees, such as name, addresses, titles, positions and home emails. Bernard refused.

The court noted that “majoritarian exclusivity” is a core principle of labour relations in Canada. That means once a majority of workers vote for a union to represent them, that union becomes the exclusive bargaining agent for all employees in that group.

Majoritarian exclusivity” = court-sanctioned group might made rights; aka:

legalized extortion!

They have a duty to represent them in collective bargaining, grievances, workforce adjustment, conducting strike or final-offer votes.

Employees can decide whether to join the union or not but they can’t waive their right on whether to be fairly and “exclusively” represented by the union.

So:You can refuse to join the union, but you must still pay them to ‘represent’ you anyway! Whee!”   

The court agreed unions cannot rely on work contact information. Communications such as email are controlled by the employer, who can vet or monitor it.

Employees can’t expect privacy with electronic communications at work. or at home any more, obviously !

Also, some employees, such as those on leave, are not reachable at work.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
(BTW this link no longer works; I have no idea about how the Citizen’s Google archiving policies – don’t – work)! ;-)Top Court Upholds Provincial Right To Seize Property




The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that provincial governments can seize steal cash, homes, and property suspected to be proceeds of crime

By Janice Tibbetts, The Ottawa Citizen – Friday, April 17 2009

OTTAWA — Provincial governments have the constitutional right to seize cash, homes and other property suspected to be proceeds of crime, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.

The unanimous decision upholds provincial laws that permit police to confiscate goods they suspect they suspect are ill-gotten, even if they do not have enough evidence to lay charges.



The court rejected an Ontario man’s argument that provincial seizure laws, adopted in recent years to deter crime and compensate victims, tread on federal jurisdiction over criminal law.

“Crime imposes substantial costs on provincial treasuries,” Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision.

“It would be out of step with modern realities to conclude that a province must shoulder the cost to the community of criminal behaviour but cannot use deterrence to suppress it.”


Crime Prevention (‘Deterrance’) is impossible and thus to even attempt it is a crime!


Robin Chatterjee, a former student at Carleton University in Ottawa, was en route to his parents’ Toronto home in March 2003 when police pulled him over and seized his money and goods.

Chatterjee was stopped because his car was missing a front licence plate. Police also found a light ballast, one light socket and an exhaust fan — items that law enforcement officers contend could be used for marijuana grow operations. They also confiscated stole $29,000 cash.

Police did not arrest the young man because they said they did not have enough evidence.

But Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, a 2001 forfeiture theft law targeted at organized crime, does not require a criminal conviction.




A key issue is the case is whether provinces have the power to seize goods they suspect were ill-gotten, given that criminal law is a federal matter.

Most provinces have similar forfeiture laws and eight provinces participated in the Supreme Court case to argue they have the constitutional power to seize the proceeds of crime.



Ontario, which led the charge, maintained that its Civil Remedies Act is not criminal law, but rather a civil process designed to compensate victims of crime and help with crime prevention by making it less attractive to pursue.



As of August 2007 the province had seized $15 million in assets, according to court records.

Chatterjee’s lawyers countered that crime is a federal responsibility and, therefore, the Ontario government’s legislation forcing the forfeiture of everything from houses to cash is outside provincial jurisdiction.

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia all have forfeiture laws, according to arguments filed in the Supreme Court.

Two lower courts sided with the Ontario government in the case, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in May 2007 that the criminal law is not a “watertight compartment” that precludes provincial involvement.


Another issue in the case is whether property seizure constitutes punishment. The Ontario government says it does not, because it is confiscating something that never rightfully belonged to the person in the first place.



- Article from The Ottawa Citizen.



reverse-onus state-theft “laws” unanimously endorsed by these convoluted twisters:




Court rules provinces can seize crime bounty

-whether or not it’s ever determined to be ‘crime bounty!’ This removes their onus of doing so – of ever again actually having to charge and try people under the aegis of evidentiary rules – we are all now merely statistics to the state actors, and they’ve just lowered the bar and so the boom on us peons, in their favour at 49/51 % (because “beyond a resonable doubt” just got demoted to “on the balance of probabilites” when mere citizens ‘interact’ with – er, I mean ‘get sued by’ the state’s now wholly self-policing ‘authority’ of mindless fear)!!!

Welcome to the uniformed mafia.

Sat, 18 Apr 2009

Provincial governments were spared the prospect of returning millions of dollars in seized property When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that the Crown has the power to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

The unanimous decision preserves provincial laws adopted across Canada in recent years permitting governments to attempt to take the profit out of crime and to compensate victims by ordering the forfeiture of ill- got-ten goods.

The ruling rejected an Ontario man’s argument that the province’s Civil Remedies Act is unconstitutional because it treads on federal jurisdiction over criminal law.

“Each level of government bears a portion of the costs of criminality and each level of government, therefore, has an interest in its suppression,” Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision.


Robin Chatterjee, a former student at Carleton University, was en route to his home in Thornhill, Ont, in March 2003 when police pulled him over because his car was missing a front licence plate.

They discovered he was breaching a court order to live in Ottawa and upon searching his car, found a ight ballast, one light socket and an exhaust fan items commonly used for marijuana grow opertions. He also had $29,000 cash.

Police did not charge the young man because they said they did not have enough evidence.

Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, however, does not require a criminal conviction, so the province moved in and seized the goods after receiving judicial approval. A judge can give permission based on a balance of probabilities that the goods were proceeds of crime, a standard that is not as high as the criminal test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.



British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia all have forfeiture laws, according to documents filed in the Supreme Court.

Chatterjee’s lawyer, James Diamond, predicted a spike in forfeitures following the Supreme Court’s endorsement.

Also, provinces that have put their efforts on hold pending the ruling can now proceed, he said.

“I certainly expect that all the provinces will step up their efforts,” said Diamond.

Seven provinces joined the court challenge to side with Ontario in its successful argument that seizing proceeds of crime falls under provincial power over property and civil rights, rather than federal jurisdiction to craft criminal law.


“Forfeiture is the (FORCED!!!) transfer of property from the owner to the Crown,” wrote Binnie. “Forfeiture does not result in the conviction of anybody for any offence.”


As of August 2007, Ontario had seized $15 million in property, according to court records.

Friday’s Supreme Court decision upholds two previous rulings in the lower courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ruled in May 2007 that the criminal Law is not a “watertight compartment” that precludes provincial involvement.



The government also can freeze assets, as it did in January, in a case involving an alleged Ottawa crack house at 155 Spadina Ave.

British Columbia’s Civil Forfeiture Office reported last August that it had seized $5.6 million in assets, mainly from illicit drug cases, since its law took effect in 2006.




Posted in Canada, Corruption, Crime, economics, human rights, Legal, media, Policy, politics, Privacy, progressive, propaganda, Regulation, Treason, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Final Swindle Of Private American Wealth Has Begun

From here:

I began writing analysis on the macro-economic situation of the American financial structure back in 2006, and in the eight years since, I have seen an undeniably steady trend of fiscal decline.

I have never had any doubt that the U.S. economy was headed for total and catastrophic collapse, the only question was when, exactly, the final trigger event would occur. As I have pointed out in the past, economic implosion is a process. It grows over time, like the ice shelf on a mountain developing into a potential avalanche. It is easy to shrug off the danger because the visible destruction is not immediate; but when the avalanche finally begins, it is far too late for most people to escape…

If you view the progressive financial breakdown in America as some kind of “comedy of errors” or a trial of unlucky coincidences, then there is not much I can do to educate you on the reasons behind the carnage. If, however, you understand that there is a deliberate motivation behind American collapse, then what I have to say here will not fall on biased ears.

The financial crash of 2008, the same crash which has been ongoing for years, is NOT an accident. It is a concerted and engineered crisis meant to position the U.S. for currency disintegration and the institution of a global basket currency controlled by an unaccountable supranational governing body like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The American populace is being conditioned through economic fear to accept the institutionalization of global financial control and the loss of sovereignty.

Anyone skeptical of this conclusion is welcome to study my numerous past examinations on the issue of globalization; I don’t have the time within this article to re-explain, and frankly, with so much information on dollar destruction available to the public today I’ve grown tired of anyone with a lack of awareness.

If you continue to believe that the Fed actually exists to “help” stabilize our economy or our currency, then you will never find the logic behind what they do. If you understand that the goal of the Fed and the globalists is to dismantle the dollar and the U.S. economic system to make way for something “new”, then certain recent events and policy initiatives do start to make sense.

The year of 2014 has been looming as a serious concern for me since the final quarter of 2013, and you can read about those concerns in my article Expect Devastating Global Economic Changes In 2014.

At the end of 2013 we saw at least three major events that could have sent America spiraling into total collapse. The first was the announcement of possible taper measures by the Fed, which have now begun. The second was the possible invasion of Syria which the Obama Administration is still desperate for despite successful efforts by the liberty movement to deny him public support for war. And the third event was the last debt ceiling debate (or debt ceiling theater depending on how you look at it), which placed the U.S. squarely on the edge of fiscal default.

As we begin 2014, these same threatening issues remain, only at greater levels and with more prominence. New developments reinforce my original position that this year will be remembered by historians as the year in which the final breakdown of the U.S. monetary dynamic culminated. Here are some of those developments explained…

Taper Of QE3

When I first suggested that a Fed taper was not only possible but probable months ago, I was met with a lot of criticism from some in the alternative economic world. You can read my taper articles here and here.

This was understandable. The Fed uses multiple stimulus outlets besides QE in order to manipulate U.S. markets. Artificially lowering interest rates is very much a form of stimulus in itself, for instance.

However, I think a dangerous blindness to threats beyond money printing has developed within our community of analysts and this must be remedied. People need to realize first that the Fed does NOT care about the continued health of our economy, and they may not care about presenting a facade of health for much longer either. Alternative analysts also need to come to grips with the reality that overt money printing is not the only method at the disposal of globalists when destroying the greenback. A debt default is just as likely to cause loss of world reserve status and devaluation, no printing press required. Blame goes to government and political gridlock while the banks slither away in the midst of the chaos.

The taper of QE3 is not a “head fake”, it is very real, but there are many hidden motivations behind such cuts.

Currently, $20 billion has been cut from the $85 billion per month program, and we are already beginning to see what appear to be market effects, including a flight from emerging market currencies from Argentina to Turkey. A couple of years ago investors viewed these markets as among the few places they could make a positive return, or in other words, one of the few places they could successfully gamble. The Fed taper, though, seems to be shifting the flow of capital away from emerging markets.

The mainstream argument is that stimulus was flowing into emerging markets, giving them liquidity support, and the taper is drying up that liquidity. Whether this is actually true is hard to say, given that without a full audit we have no idea how much fiat the Federal Reserve has actually created and how much of it they send out into foreign markets.

I stand more on the position that the Fed taper was begun in preparation for a slowdown in global markets. In fact, I believe central bankers have been well aware that a decline in every sector was coming, and are moving to insulate themselves.

Look at it this way: The taper program distances the bankers from responsibility for any dramatic changes in our financial framework, at least in the eyes of the general public. If a market crisis takes place WHILE stimulus measures are still at full speed, this makes the banks look rather guilty, or at least incompetent. People would begin to question the validity of central bank methods, and they might even question the validity of the central bank’s existence. The Fed is creating space between itself and the economy because they know that a trigger event is coming. They want to ensure that they are not blamed and that stimulus itself is not seen as ineffective.

We all know that the claims of recovery are utter nonsense. One need only look at true unemployment numbers, dismal sales reports from last quarter, and the all time low household savings of the average American to see this. The taper is not in response to an improving economic environment. Rather, the taper is a signal for the next stage of collapse.

The exodus from emerging market currencies and stocks was coming regardless of the Fed taper because of a global slowdown in demand. This slowdown is clearly visible in the Baltic Dry Index, which has lost around 50 percent of its value in the past three weeks.

Stocks are beginning to plummet around the world and all mainstream pundits are pointing fingers at the reduction in stimulus. What is the message? That we “can’t live” without the aid of the central banks. The truth is, the effectiveness of stimulus manipulation has a shelf life, and that shelf life is over for the Federal Reserve. I suspect they will continue cutting QE every month for the next year as stocks decline.

Government Controlled Investment

Last month, just as taper measures were being implemented, the White House launched an investment program called MyRA; a retirement IRA program in which middle class and low wage Americans can invest part of their paycheck in government bonds.

That’s right, if you wanted to know where the money was going to come from to support U.S. debt if the Fed cuts QE, guess what, the money is going to come from YOU.

For a decade or so China was the primary buyer and crutch for U.S. debt spending. After the derivatives crash of 2008, the Federal Reserve became the largest purchaser of Treasury bonds. With the decline of foreign interest in long term U.S. debt, and the taper in full effect, it only makes sense that the government would seek out an alternative source of capital to continue the debt cycle. The MyRA program turns the general American public into a new cash stream, but there’s more going on here than meets the eye…

I find it rather suspicious that a government-controlled retirement program is suddenly introduced just as the Fed has begun to taper, as stocks are beginning to fall, and as questions arise over the U.S. debt ceiling. I have three major concerns:

First, is it possible that like the Fed, the government is also aware that a crash in stocks is coming? And, are they offering the MyRA program as an easy outlet (or trap) for people to pour in what little savings they have as panic over declining equities accelerates?

Second, the program is currently voluntary, but what if the plan is to make it mandatory? Obama has already signed mandatory health insurance “taxation” into law, which is meant to steal a portion of every paycheck. Why not steal an even larger portion from every paycheck in order to support U.S. debt? It’s for the “greater good,” after all.

Third, is this a deliberate strategy to corral the last vestiges of private American wealth into the corner of U.S. bonds, so that this wealth can be confiscated or annihilated? What happens if there is indeed an eventual debt default, as I believe there will be? Will Americans be herded into bonds by a crisis in stocks only to have bonds implode as well? Will they be conned into bond investment out of a “patriotic duty” to save the nation from default? Or, will the government just take their money through legislative wrangling, as was done in Cyprus not long ago?

The Final Swindle

The next debt ceiling debate is coming at the end of this month. If the government decides to kick the can down the road for another quarter, I believe this will be the last time. The most recent actions of the Fed and the government signal preparations for a stock implosion and ultimate debt calamity. Default would have immediate effects in foreign markets, but the appearance of U.S. stability could drag on for a time, giving the globalists ample opportunity to siphon every ounce of financial blood from the public.

It is difficult to say how the next year will play out, but one thing is certain; something very strange and dangerous is afoot. The goal of globalists is to engineer desperation. To create a catastrophe and then force the masses to beg for help. How many hands of “friendship” will be offered in the wake of a U.S. wealth and currency crisis? What offers for “aid” will come from the IMF? How much of our country and how many of our people will be collateralized to secure that aid? And, how many Americans will go along with the swindle because they were not prepared in advance?

-Brandon Smith

Posted in America, Corruption, Crime, economics, Globalization, human rights, Legal, Policy, politics, progressive, propaganda, Regulation, Treason, Uncategorized, United States, USA | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Dianne Feinstein to make 1 BILLION DOLLARS off US Postal properties

Going Postal: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband sells post offices to his friends, cheap.

From here:

Feinstein makes 1 billion dollars through the sale of US Post Offices media remains silent:

— Krafty.Wurker (@KraftyWurker) November 23, 2013

On YouTube:

Published on Nov 1, 2013 by NextNewsNetwork

To read the WHOLE STORY please search Amazon for Peter Byrne’s amazing piece on these two dirtbags called “Going Postal: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband sells post offices to his friends, cheap.

This story about Dianne Feinstein making 1 BILLION DOLLARS off the sale of US Postal properties is like an onion, each layer you peel off reveals another layer and so on. But instead of making you cry this onion only makes you angrier and angrier with each layer peeled. The first layer is that the United States Postal Service is broke and to try and make ends meet they must sell off hundreds of post office properties to gain cash flow and reduce their deficit. In a side stinky layer 80% of the postal service’s multi-billion dollar deficit is caused by a law that congress passed in 2006 that requires it to pay retiree health benefits 75 years into the future.

This law does not apply to any other government agency. According to a Postal Service report to Congress more than 600 buildings nationwide are “earmarked for disposal”. This alone is making people across the country angry because some of these post offices are historic buildings that have been post offices for almost a hundred years. Such is the case in Berkeley and La Jolla California, where residents have been working to get their post offices historic status to avoid closure. Residents have reached out to their State Senator, Dianne Feinstein, for help with this task but have not heard back. A representative from Dianne Feinstein’s office said that they contacted the state preservation office and that their reply was “the paperwork for those buildings was not filled out correctly and that they would need to correct and re-submit the paperwork.

That leads us to another layer of this stinky onion, Dianne Feinstein. The company that was awarded the contract to sell all of the postal properties is CB Richard Ellis, the world’s largest commercial real estate firm. The chairman of CBRE is a man by the name of Richard Blum, doesn’t ring a bell? He just happens to be Dianne Feinstein’s husband. OK Let me just list a few of CBRE’s highlights with the US Postal Service Properties:

1) CBRE appears to have repeatedly violated its contractual duty to sell postal properties at or above fair market value resulting in the loss of tens of millions of dollars. For example in Seattle CBRE sold a post office building in 2011 for 8 million dollars, it was assessed for 16 million. Another layer.

2) In a series of apparently non-arms length transactions CBRE negotiated the sale of postal properties around the country to its own clients and business partners. Google the Boston Seaport deals and see if that doesn’t turn your stomach. Another layer.

3) CBRE has been paid commissions up to 6% for representing both the seller and the buyer in many of the negotiations. This raising questions to whether CBRE was doing it’s best to obtain the highest price possible for the postal service or their clients.. another stinky layer.

When Dianne Feinstein was questioned about her husbands dealings and her involvement in them her rep said “Sen. Feinstein is not involved with and does not discuss any of her husband’s business decisions with him. Her husband’s holdings are his separate personal property.”

CBRE is also in charge of appraising the fair market value of these properties and listing at a reasonable sales price. Real estate appraisals are not customarily performed by the agent marketing the property. To avoid a conflict of interest, appraisals are normally performed by professionals not involved in the sale.

So if you’re paying attention then you can see how this is working out. CBRE is tasked with selling properties at market value or higher. But who determines what market value is? CBRE.

To read the WHOLE STORY please search Amazon for Peter Byrnes amazing piece on these two dirtbags called “Going Postal: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s husband sells post offices to his friends, cheap.

Hashtag: #N3

Next News Network’s WHDT World News Program airs daily at 6pm and 11pm Eastern on Comcast, DirecTV and Over-the-Air and Online at

WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.

WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.

More about WHDT:

Posted in America, Corruption, Crime, economics, Education, Legal, media, Policy, politics, progressive, propaganda, Regulation, Treason, Uncategorized, United States, USA | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments