NO PLAN! Can You Believe it!
Be seeing you
Massie Criticizes Move By Gaetz … Is Massie Right?
Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2023
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Gaetz, Massie | Leave a Comment »
Assessing the BRICS Expansion: Debunking Expectations | Mises Wire
Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2023
In the end, many of the group’s goals, such as dedollarization or regulating the price and quantity of oil and minerals, seem unlikely or impossible. Meanwhile, the goal of escaping US hegemony, if achieved, could just lead to Chinese hegemony. However, the biggest contradiction of the BRICS agenda is revealed in Xi Jinping’s closing speech when he advises the BRICS nations to avoid hegemony, bloc-building, and sleepwalking into a ”new Cold War”—given that his vision for BRICS is to build and dominate a large bloc to counter the US and the G7.
https://mises.org/wire/assessing-brics-expansion-debunking-expectations
At the conclusion of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg on August 24, 2023, it was announced that the five-country grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, had invited six more countries to join: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Argentina. The new memberships, which will take effect in January 2024, were called “historic” by Chinese leader Xi Jinping, while Vladimir Putin, unable to travel due to an International Criminal Court warrant, remotely congratulated the new BRICS members and pledged to expand the group’s global influence.
Given the economic and political conditions in most of the member countries, however, as well as conflicts between them and diverging interests, the goals of the expanded BRICS group are largely unachievable. In the end, if successful, BRICS will replace US hegemony with Chinese hegemony.
Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill came up with the acronym BRIC in 2001 to designate the four rapidly growing economies (South Africa was not yet included), which he predicted could be among the world’s largest by 2039. In recent years, Xi Jinping has promoted BRICS as a rival to the Group of Seven (G7), but it remains loosely organized and has no institutions or currency of its own. China, Russia, and, to some extent, India hold most of the political and economic influence in BRICS.
Those who believe that BRICS will disrupt the international order can cite several impressive statistics. With the accession of the new members, BRICS countries will contribute an additional 400 million people for a combined 46 percent of the world’s population. They will also account for 37 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) (more than the G7), 42 percent of world oil production, and significant percentages of various critical minerals. What is more, the group is expected to grow: forty countries have expressed interest in joining.
Members believe BRICS will acquire soft development loans backed by China, champion their own interests, dedollarize their economies, counter US hegemony, and increase revenues from minerals and oil. Each of these points is discussed below.
Lack of Shared Interests
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: BRICS, dedollarization, G7, hegemony | Leave a Comment »
A Small Continuing Resolution Victory Could Have Big Consequences
Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2023
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Continuing Resolution, debt | Leave a Comment »
No Privacy, No Property: The World In 2030 According To The WEF
Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2023
Eight Predictions
People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
Western values will be tested to the breaking point.……………………………….
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-privacy-no-property-world-2030-according-wef-0
by Tyler Durden
Tuesday, Oct 03, 2023 – 11:45 PM
Authored by Madge Waggy via SevenWop.home.blog,
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded fifty years ago. It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning. As a meeting place of the global elite, the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals. The main thrust of the forum is global control.
Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030 according to the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum.
Eight Predictions
Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns.
According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.
If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system. Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods. Every personal move would be tracked electronically, and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment.
In order to attain “sustainable agriculture,” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian. In the new totalitarian service economy, the government will provide basic accommodation, food, and transport, while the rest must be lent from the state. The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum. In cooperation with the few key countries, a global agency would set the price of CO2 emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use.
In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: carbon dioxide, global control, own nothing, Privacy, Property, WEF, western values | Leave a Comment »
The News Has Nothing To Do With Newsworthiness
Posted by M. C. on October 4, 2023
…the TV reporters at Channel 10 would write their stories before going to the scene of their reporting and just look for things that support their pre-written narrative, so there was never any actual fact-finding or real journalism happening on the ground.
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/the-news-has-nothing-to-do-with-newsworthiness
I don’t mention it often but I actually have a degree in journalism. I graduated with distinction from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in 2003, and while it would be another 13 years before I’d ever put my degree to any use, the experience played a massive role in forming my opinions about the mainstream press.
One of the lessons I think about a lot came at the beginning of my two-week internship with Channel 10’s Eyewitness News (now 10 News First) when I was watching the show’s bedraggled news editor put everyone’s story assignments up on the whiteboard one morning. I’d been paying a lot of attention to TV news at the time because that’s what we were studying, and I’d noticed that the stories Channel 10 would cover were always exactly the same as the ones that would be covered by Channel 7 and Channel 9— usually in exactly the same order.
“Why do you guys always cover the same stories as Channel 7 and Channel 9?” I asked. “Do you guys phone each other to coordinate?”
He laughed.
“No, but it is a bit strange isn’t it?” he agreed. “I guess it’s what you call ‘news sense’.”
Even back then I had a hard time believing that all news editors had some magical “sense” which caused them each to know which are the most newsworthy stories day after day in a whole world full of events and ordeals.
Since that time I’ve learned about the groupthink effect that working in the mainstream press tends to have on people’s minds according to those who’ve made careers there, and the fact that journalists who either don’t know how to or don’t care to dance to the the agenda-setting task of the plutocratic media don’t find themselves promoted to news editor. It’s not that editors are coordinating with each other across outlets or receiving instructions on what to report from oligarchs and government agencies, it’s that if they were the type who needed to do such things to know what to report, they wouldn’t be working where they’re working.
How did the mainstream press know to ignore the scandal of a Ukrainian Nazi being applauded in the Canadian parliament? How did they know to smear Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn? How do they know to support every war while ignoring homelessness and economic injustice? It sure ain’t “news sense”.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: agenda-setting, Groupthink, News, Newsworthiness | Leave a Comment »
The Key to Peace in Ukraine? The Other Broken NATO Promise.
Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2023
“Lavrov answered that Russia “recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine back in 1991, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which Ukraine adopted when it withdrew from the Soviet Union.” He then clearly pointed out that “one of the main points for [Russia] in the declaration was that Ukraine would be a non-bloc, non-alliance country; it would not join any military alliances.””
“There was not just a NATO promise to stay out of Ukraine, there was also a Ukrainian promise to stay out of NATO.”
by Ted Snider
In 2007, Putin asked the world, “What happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.” He then went on to remind his audience of NATO’s promise not to expand east of Germany toward Russia’s borders.
In 2008, when NATO promised that Ukraine would become a member of NATO, Russian officials warned that “Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.” Putin said that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.” Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov warned that Russia would do “everything possible” to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO.
In 2023, Putin said that “In fact, the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the reason, or rather one of the reasons for the special military operation.”
It is often forgotten in the discussion of the war in Ukraine that in 1990 and 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the break up of the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Cold War, NATO promised Gorbachev that NATO would not expand east. With the declassification of so many of the documents recording those promises, no objective analyst can any longer deny that the promise was made. Rather, apologists for US and NATO behavior claim that the promise was not binding because it was not written down. But, as several scholars, like Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson and Mark Trachtenberg, have pointed out, verbal agreements made at the level this verbal agreement was made can be binding under international law, and they cite several important precedence, including precedence involving the US and the Soviet Union.
Not only was the promise binding, it may have been more than a promise. It may have reached the level of a deal. Deals, in which one party gives up something in exchange for what the other party promises in return, are more binding than promises. The documentary record is clear that Gorbachev allowed a united Germany to remain in NATO in exchange for a NATO promise not to expand east.
It is the breaking of that deal that Russia has frequently cited as “one of the reasons for the special military operation.”
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: NATO Promise, peace, Ukraine | Leave a Comment »
Happiness
Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2023
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Happiness | Leave a Comment »
Should We Allow U.S. Land to Be Sold to the Chinese?
Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2023
Third, according to that old folk wisdom, if goods don’t cross borders, armies will. Farm land is not usually thought of as a tradeable good, but it is.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/137566977
Admittedly, this idea sounds bad. Both “sell out” and “selling out” have a bad odor to them. Rather, we should “stand firm!” And there is nothing like perking up that patriotic spirit that compares to bashing supposed foreign enemies. However, there are deep and dire problems with this attempt at demagoguery.
First of all, there is simply no mention in the U.S. Constitution, let alone prohibition of, selling land to foreigners. We have been doing so since practically the beginning of our country. A relatively recent high-profile case in point is the sale of Rockefeller Center in New York City to Japanese interests. This land parcel contains 19 buildings ranging from three stories to sky scrapers, and comprises 22 acres dab smack in the middle of Manhattan. A 51% share was purchased for $846 million in 1989 by the Mitsubishi Corporation. As it happens, this sale did not go all that well for the buyers; they sold out in 1995 for a loss (but that is entirely beside the point). If the U.S. Constitution prohibited sales of this sort, this one never would have occurred.
Second, according to one opponent of such sales, a Republican candidate for Governor of Washington state:
“The practice of selling American land to anyone other than American citizens is heinous and unconstitutional. American soil belongs to American citizens. End of discussion.”
Did you notice anything missing from this harangue, apart from a failure to mention which part of the U.S. Constitution is of relevance? In most sales, nay, all sales without exception, there is a buyer and seller. So far, so good. There are these two countries. But there is also a price! What is the price the Chinese are willing to pay for our precious farm land? Typically, fertile agricultural acreage sells for about $3,800 per acre in the United States. Well, suppose the people of the Middle Kingdom offered double that amount, or $7,600 per acre. Then, the likelihood of Americans going without “access to reliable and sufficient quantities of affordable, nutritious food” would be decreased, not increased, by all such sales. American farmers could then purchase twice as much arable land in nearby Canada or Mexico; they would be enriched, and we would have more food rather than less.
Here is a multiple-choice question for those of you who have not yet had Economics 101: are the Chinese likely to offer less than $3,800, that exact amount, or more than that figure, for their average purchase? Go to the head of the class if you selected that latter option. For an explanation: with these new offers for our terrain, the demand curve for it will shift to the right and prices will tend to be higher, not the same or lower. Maybe not double, as in this example, but higher!
Should we sell the entire country to the Chinese? It all depends upon what they offer for it! If it is the sun, the moon, and the stars, then yes. If it is eternal life, plus the entire remainder of the planet, including China itself, then, again, yes, of course. Without knowing what the precise financial and otherwise offer is, it ill behooves anyone to reject any deal!
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Chinese, U.S. Land | Leave a Comment »
General Milley’s Last Words Confirm His Sedition and Likely Treason
Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2023
“Now that we are globally witness to Gen. Milley’s seditious outgoing ‘hate speech’ he should be stripped of his rank and pension. Milley’s illustrious career ended with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Afghanistan Freedom. Which liberated Iraq and Afghanistan of roughly 350,000 lives and Taxpayers of $4-$6 TRILLION. Afghanistan is now controlled by the Taliban and Iraq is an ally of Russia. WELL DONE!“
by Helena
General Milley formally exited ‘stage left’ by evoking Hate Speech’: “We don’t take an oath to a country, we don’t take an oath to a tribe, we don’t take an oath to a religion. We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or a tyrant or a dictator. And we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator,” he spat. “We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America – and we’re willing to die to protect it.”
Not only does this crude statement reveal a man enshrined in hate, it reveals a General who has no idea what the oath of office is for officers! A) he takes an oath to the Constitution of the United States our COUNTRY – not to China – not to Ukraine – not to Taiwan! B) he takes an oath to ‘obey the President of the United States’.
He did neither of these things and has now gone on record digging his grave for the world to hear and absorb. His last words are words of sedition. Sedition: Speech or organization that includes subversion of The US Constitution.
The Oath states:
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed …
The media has an interesting take on defining ‘hate speech’ – and instead references this ‘Generals’ choice of outgoing statements as a simple Trump ‘jab’. Of course the media has zero understanding of the Military, its vows of discretion and honor and respect! They only know Hollywood Che Guevara Sean Penn deviance of how military officials are supposed to be conduct themselves, and the hierarchy that entails. The President is Milley’s Commander in Chief. Not the other way around. And if he cannot abide that Commander – he has the option to RESIGN. Effective immediately.
Worse yet, Private First Class Milley, made his statements in front of cadets, other servicemen, and media, thereby enhancing his choice of words within the colossal potential for Treason by admitting he failed to uphold his Oath of Office under Trump, did not uphold The Constitution, and instead colluded with China – and made secret phone calls with CCP officials while still under Oath to President Trump. An allegiance deviance.
In addition to Hate Speech, sedition, and treason – Milley revealed rampant ‘stupidity’ in his public display which he can not now deny happened.
In a similar vein of idiocy, Twitter influencer, Mehdi Hasan, made the unproven declaration that Hate Speech on Twitter has increased 1000x since Musk bought the company. Without anyone asking, he decided to take upon himself to hold his own Challenge and thus prove he is right. But in classic liberal scream fashion, he failed to edit his own tweets, which are rife with “Hate Speech”! Stupidity has taken the reins of the liberals. They cannot undo.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Constitution, General Milley, Sedition, treason | Leave a Comment »
TGIF: Limited Government’s Bait and Switch
Posted by M. C. on October 2, 2023
Well, why does market anarchism, unlike minarchism, inspire reasonable confidence about the chances of protecting liberty? That’s a topic for another day, but suffice it to say that, as Caplan argues, rational self-interest, free competition, the need for a good reputation, and today’s general expectation of peaceful conflict resolution provide our best chance.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-bait-switch/
In a fundamental respect, libertarian minarchism (minimal, or limited, government) and market anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) have something important in common: neither can guarantee individual rights.
But there’s a big difference: unlike market anarchism, minarchism appears to offer a guarantee, which allegedly makes it preferable to market anarchism. Actually, it’s a false guarantee, a bait-and-switch. So it’s not preferable to market anarchism, at least on those grounds.
However, what market anarchism can do is show how everyday incentives will tend to protect liberty (and already do now). Minarchism can’t credibly say the same thing because constitutionally limited representative democracy is riddled with well-known perverse political incentives. That makes market anarchism the better bet.
It’s instructive to watch the recent Soho Forum debate on the proposition “Anarcho-capitalism would definitely be a complete disaster for humanity.” Yaron Brook, chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute, took the affirmative, and Bryan Caplan, libertarian professor of economics at George Mason University, took the negative. I think Caplan demolished Brook’s case, which isn’t exclusive to Ayn Rand Objectivists. This was a debate between two people starting from similar premises in favor of individual freedom, rational self-interest, and competition.
While what follows may not convince anyone to advocate market anarchism, it should eliminate a big argument against it.
Most limited-government advocates think that only a monopoly government can produce the objective law and fair and peaceful adjudication/enforcement that human beings need to flourish. The problem, as indicated, is that minarchism is all talk. It can’t deliver.
Remember the old joke in which a tourist asks a grumpy local how to get somewhere? The local responds, “You can’t get there from here.” That’s the problem. Brook’s theory of constitutionally limited government promises to get us to a place we cannot go because it doesn’t exist. Why not? As Dr. Seuss might say, because it’s people all the way down. Limited-government advocates ignore this obvious fact.
Contrary to its fans, limited government is conceptually impossible. It, not anarchism, is a “floating abstraction.” If this standard argument for limited government disappears, what’s left?
Any advocate of liberty who knows even a little U.S. political history should see the problem for minarchism. In freedom-loving quarters, the American constitutional system wins kudos — the obvious serious contradictions such as slavery excepted. But what about the government’s horrendous expansion since 1789? Isn’t that a hint that something did not quite work?
Some Americans began complaining about the bigness of the national government at the turn of the 19th century! And let’s not forget that the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, denied the national quasi-government the power to tax and regulate trade. Within a few years, that changed. Wasn’t that a bad omen?
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Anarcho-Capitalism, Bait and Switch, Liberty, limited government, Minarchism | Leave a Comment »
