Check This Guy Out

[SpearBrave]

I don't know what to think of this guy or what he is saying:

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

[EQ Fighter]

I think he is saying the Washington establishment and Politburo News Media, are Liars and Criminals.
I agree with him on that point, and he is really not saying anything we don’t already know.

[SpearBrave]

I just think sending them a tea bag is a little fluffy.

[Vindefense]

He seems to be making sense but some of the things that he is saying are deceptive. In fact, seeing how many views and approvals he has is adding to my distrust.

The language barrier for instance. By allowing duality of language, we insure that communication is limited between us. This is the best way to promote segregation IMO.

The voting thing. It seems like voting all of the incumbents out of office would help us but this is only on the surface. We may end up with worse politicians than we already have. Political corruption is only the effect. It is not the source of our ills.

4:20 in he says 'abolish the electoral college'. This would be a grave mistake, and it would make our transition to a democracy complete. One man one vote, is Marxist ideology as is Democracy.

The election of the president has never been in the hands of 'we the people' and for good reason. It ensures that government is localized. That is what a Republic is all about. Total democracy will give way to an unstoppable central government. I prefer the ancient model of law where local meant no further than your community and front door.

Universal service is involuntary servitude. Plain and simple.

Then he goes on about entitlement. The biggest lie being consumed today is that the banks destroyed the economy and we need a gold backed currency. The people need someone to blame but it never occurs to them that

1. It is the people who destroyed the economy. No one forced you to use the banks. When people stopped saving money and turned to investing, they created an illusion of infinite prosperity but that is all it was, an illusion. The gang of people known as the 'government' act no different in a group than they do in their own private lives. They spend now and pay later.

2. Gold is finite, and it is more dangerous to the middle class than the fiat currency. In fact, the fiat system created the middle class. With gold only 2 classes of people emerge. One class that deals in ingots and one that deals in dust, master and serf. It makes me wonder who is really behind the current push to buy gold.

3. The people can take the power back any time they want. That is the hard part. Of course this would entail a radical departure from the current state, where dodging responsibility is the norm.

[Sigurd]

The language barrier for instance. By allowing duality of language, we insure that communication is limited between us. This is the best way to promote segregation IMO.

That, I am afraid is BS. It creates segregation, but you still have to pay taxes to feed the people that don't even bother to speak your language.

Duality of language is not what you want - you want one language, and the people who don't speak it to go back home to Mexico or wherever.

Then you can ensure that communication is limited, by virtue of a lovely national border, without having to compromise the national language by allowing umpteen of others to exist alongside it.

The voting thing. It seems like voting all of the incumbents out of office would help us but this is only on the surface. We may end up with worse politicians than we already have. Political corruption is only the effect. It is not the source of our ills.

That's why we - that is people of our persuasion - should do something to get ourselves into a position where we can be brought into power. Otherwise you're of course exchanging a pack of Rizla+ for a pack of Zig-Zag.

One man one vote, is Marxist ideology as is Democracy.

In case you hadn't noticed, the presidential election IS already virtually decided by "one man, one vote" for the most part. 435/538 members of the electoral college are typically congressmen/-women. And as you may know, the amount of congressmen your state sends depends on the population.

That usually means: The larger the state, the more likely it is to make an impact. You could win in 10 of the largest states and have a landslide victory --- what you want is not a majority of the people, what you want is the majority of states supporting you, to show that you have broad acceptance all across the country.

Obama was brought in by winning the cities and winning the more populous states. When projected across a nationwide map, it actually looked like a McCain landslide. It should be: "One village, one representative" to make sure all villages are heard (even "one state, ten representatives" across the board could work) - not a population-based system as you have it for the most part currently.

If anything, you'd decree that equal numbers of people in the electoral college, and consequently congress, for each state should exist - that way you'd make sure that the concerns of smaller states are also heard, not just the voice of California, New York, Texas and Florida - the urban states with a large amount of racial aliens.

The election of the president has never been in the hands of 'we the people' and for good reason. It ensures that government is localized. That is what a Republic is all about. Total democracy will give way to an unstoppable central government.

You mean as centralised as Switzerland?

Universal service is involuntary servitude. Plain and simple.

Universal service is involuntary servitude, but it should be compulsory to serve your community. Never mind that the skills you will learn doing national service are skills you won't learn anywhere else.

Soldiers, including young temporal recruits can fulfil all types of duties, which means that maintaining certain facilities need be at lesser expense to the tax payer.

Finally, as I already hinted before - you are serving your community by universal service, that is if it is applied correctly. Men can't just talk about politicians doing nothing for the community when they haven't even served their community by a form of military or civil service.

I will grant that a replacement civil service also of use to the community should be available in exceptional cases. Not as freely as it is in Austria or Germany at the minute, but in exceptional cases, this can be useful service to the community as well, such as driving an ambulance, looking after the elderly, etc.

Gold is finite [...] With gold only 2 classes of people emerge. One class that deals in ingots and one that deals in dust, master and serf.

Yes this is quite correct. Regardless of how the middle class was created, it is customary for Germanic societies from the ancient till nowadays to have three social and economic classes. Anything that goes against this is to be deemed as dangerous.

Strangely enough, it is however any form of full-fledged capitalism that tends to create people that earn outside of their traditional social class, and as a result diminishes the middle class as it is divided into a Proletariat and a Bourgeosie. I'm afraid, Marx was 100% correct in his analysis in this point.

What you want is a localisation of the economy by instating a more syndicalist system, where the economy is essentially upheld by local trade co-operatives. This worked in a way in the medieval with the Guild system, BTW.

3. The people can take the power back any time they want. That is the hard part. Of course this would entail a radical departure from the current state, where dodging responsibility is the norm.

An old known fact is: The people only have the power when they don't have it on paper. A modern, unhierarchic democracy --- except the politician/people oligarch discrepancy --- without application to at least a partial feudal model will never let the people have the power.

For the people to have the power it needs a more hierarchic class system - because then the limited upper-class is sustainable my the moderately large middle-class and they in turn by the mass of the working-class --- and vice versa.

Otherwise, people are only going to feel responsible for themselves, because they understand themselves as "part of that empowered people who is all universally righted" and as a result it is no wonder that the whole thing crumbles. Unhierarchic democracy as we have it - that is, "every vote counts the same" rather than the more ideal "He who made himself more deserved, gets a greater say" --- that just breeds egalitarianism.

Abolish the "each vote counts the same" madness and instead bring on a system based in part on merit.

[velvet]

2. Gold is finite, and it is more dangerous to the middle class than the fiat currency. In fact, the fiat system created the middle class. With gold only 2 classes of people emerge. One class that deals in ingots and one that deals in dust, master and serf. It makes me wonder who is really behind the current push to buy gold.

I think you're wrong here. Fiat money, that is money that actually does not exist, is designed to remove the middle class.

The middle class, as it once were, is that class of people who created the nation's wealth and prosperity, with real work creating real things and selling them to real people, earning real money. The circulation of money within the society happens in this class of people, with the money flow only touching occasionally the lower class and the upper class.

Fiat money on the other hand takes out the realness of the money from this floating process, and per design pushes the real money only into the upper class (that is the banks), while leaving the middle class and the lower class with few or even no money at all.

The real money that ends up in the upper class is the fiat money created by the debts of the middle class, not by their sells, wins or products, only by their debts. And when they cant pay their debts anymore, they are ripped of their property, their goods and their labor force, and so the real things go to the banks, while the debts remain in the middle class.

A little anecdote from current economy crisis Germany. You would think that right now, having crashing banks in mind and billions of bailouts, no bank would even think about giving away credits and loans. The opposite is true, TV advertisements are full of bank ads promising you credits even with absolutely no safety on your site, for every purpose, with overdrawn accounts and without a look into your 'credit investigation company' (Germany's debts watch) account.
Why? Because this is how banks earn their fiat money - by your debts.

Meanwhile the floating amount of money is only about 10 percent real money, however backupped with any kind of worth (gold, houses, companies, etc), the rest of 90(!) percent does not exist, actually has no worth at all. In the entire western world.

When Lehman Brother's crashed (and with it half european economy, mainly Iceland, which was the plan, but also affected Germany and France, the two main financiers of EU) vanished about 570bio Dollar without any trace. LB was one of the 'reinsurance banks', also for European banks. US Government paid with bailouts a lot to the 'common customers' (well, companies) of that bank which had to face losses, but also our European real tax money went into bailouts to 'save' companies from going down, because the American banks who took over the remnants demanded immediate pay-back of all debts (again, real money for something that does not exist). Of course only companies were 'saved', while the little customer lost his savings, without any hope to ever get something back.

Fiat money is designed to be an active redistribution process from the bottom to the top, from the middle class to the financial elites.

[Vindefense]

Posted by Sigurd:

That, I am afraid is BS. It creates segregation, but you still have to pay taxes to feed the people that don't even bother to speak your language.

My position is realistic. In the present state, segregation is favorable over assimilation. If that state ever changes, then I would agree with you. For now, anything that fosters disunion among the different cultures is well for us.

That's why we - that is people of our persuasion - should do something to get ourselves into a position where we can be brought into power.

It is going to take more than political power. The transformation must begin within in before it can become manifest.

In case you hadn't noticed, the presidential election IS already virtually decided by "one man, one vote" for the most part. 435/538 members of the electoral college are typically congressmen/-women. And as you may know, the amount of congressmen your state sends depends on the population.

Elected or appointed officials are not eligible for participation. This would exclude congress.

Those who oppose it have an agenda: http://www.maitreg.com/politics/arti...ralcollege.asp One I don't support I might add.

Universal service is involuntary servitude, but it should be compulsory to serve your community. Never mind that the skills you will learn doing national service are skills you won't learn anywhere else.

As far as serving community, yes. This I agree with, on a local level, such as a community militia. This is a perfectly acceptable sacrifice. Voluntary service is much more advantageous in the long term.

What you want is a localisation of the economy by instating a more syndicalist system, where the economy is essentially upheld by local trade co-operatives. This worked in a way in the medieval with the Guild system, BTW.

The Gild system, not only established in medieval Europe it was also the foundation on which the early Anglo law was built upon. Interestingly enough, all Germanic offshoots kept this system and it is only in the last century that it has been destroyed. Perhaps a big reason for our decline.

Otherwise, people are only going to feel responsible for themselves, because they understand themselves as "part of that empowered people who is all universally righted" and as a result it is no wonder that the whole thing crumbles.

.

The whole thing crumbles because people no longer work together, they only work for themselves. If they worked together, then it would also follow that they are the most efficient in a common community. Add to this the fact that we support an Empire which has far exceeded it's stated purpose and has neglected entirely it's traditional purpose- To keep the people whole, both in blood and spirit.

Posted by Velvet:

The middle class, as it once were, is that class of people who created the nation's wealth and prosperity, with real work creating real things and selling them to real people, earning real money. The circulation of money within the society happens in this class of people, with the money flow only touching occasionally the lower class and the upper class....

What makes Gold real money? What makes it valuable? Our perception. Other than it's recent use in computer components gold is only as valuable as the peoples desire to possess it and it is finite. A finite currency will eventually increase in value in proportion to the size of the population. The logical outcome is first, deflation then a 2 class society. But there is a difference with fiat money.

Fiat money is not based upon a peoples desire to possess it. Its value is based upon a promise. The promise is labor. Literally, labor is gold today. Who hates that more than anything? Marxists.

The middle class is being dismantled not because of fiat currency but because of those who participated in unsound and unrealistic business ventures. They invested in high risk stocks to build themselves what they thought would be a nice pot. They invested in real estate that they could not normally afford. When the values began to plummet they dumped them.

By keeping the interest rates artificially low, people do not make the correct business choices. By design the bankers create a fictional picture of the economic landscape, to entice people to borrow. If people are borrowing they are not creating wealth. Even if the currency was backed by gold, this is still true. So, in a sense, the middle class was artificially built up only to be completely knocked down by what amounts to their own greed. This would have been avoided had they made sound business choices.

Fiat money is designed to be an active redistribution process from the bottom to the top, from the middle class to the financial elites.

Contrary to recent opinion, this is not necessarily true. The redistribution process you speak of is due to inflation caused by credit and unfettered government spending. The banks certainly were not going to intervene and they profited from it exceedingly but the system alone is not to blame.

A people who were responsible could certainly benefit from a fiat currency, as was the case in the German Reich for a while. The difference is in the people and how they perceive themselves in the society. The government wants you to believe that you are helpless, victims. It wants you to depend on it. The last thing it wants is for you to stop blaming the bankers and the fed and start blaming yourselves. You just might realize that you do have some power left.