in Editorial , 1863 references
When In The Course of Human Events......
The Founders of this nation put forward a very basic premise:
to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
That no government, no person whether royalty or not, King, Queen or Pawn, can take from one to give to another, to make one lesser than another, to bring remove from one the basics of humanity for the privilege of another.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
That the very premise of humanity is that one has a right to live, to be left alone to do as one pleases, and to pursue -- but not be guaranteed -- happiness. The only lawful and proper constraints arise when your exercise of same prevents someone else from having that same peaceful enjoyment.
One cannot have a right to life if one cannot defend it using tools at least as powerful as those who would take it from you.
One cannot have liberty if one is compelled to slavery for another's benefit.
The Founders put together a document called The Constitution. The debate over it, and what needed to be added to it, is found in The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist; two books that are the chronology of the running debate of the time. Anyone who claims to have an opinion on the foundations of our nation and why the Constitution is important ought to have read both, as should anyone who claims a right to run for elective office at any level -- state, local or federal.
Chief among the foundation of this nation is The Rule of Law and that it apply equally to everyone, all the time, in each case without exception. Our government and We The People have made a mockery of this.
Not one illegal immigrant has a right to be here under any circumstance; The Rule of Law says so. It does not matter whether they personally intended to break said law; that merely encompasses whether they bear criminal culpability for the offense. If you find yourself with someone else's $1,000 and you did not intend to steal it, but you had no lawful means by which you came to have it you still have no right to keep it.
Calling someone a Dreamer is an insult to America. Their "dream" is theft. A thief has no right to keep the spoils irrespective of their personal culpability in obtaining same nor do they have any right to demand respect from anyone else.
Senators Richard Blumenthal and Mark Warner, both Democrats, have threatened legislation that is a rank violation of the First Amendment in response to the Christchurch livestream. Where is respect for the contract our government has with the people; the terms of which are embodied in The Constitution and its Amendments?
There is no respect because the people of this nation no longer have respect for themselves nor any willingness to hold government to the terms and conditions of its very existence.
Every single person in America should not only watch the Christchurch slaughter they should watch all videos of any extremist Muslim who saws off heads or throws gays off buildings. It is not possible to understand evil and the only effective means to stop it if you refuse to recognize it exists and watch the errors others made that led them to their demise.
How many gay people would support a person who supports said political and religious philosophies if videos of those adherents murdering gay people by throwing them off 20 story buildings were readily available? Why do you think Senators Blumenthal and Warner want that content declared illegal despite it being a rank violation of the Constitution to do so?
Governments are banning and attempting to ban such not because they fear copycats: They are banning that speech and literally burning books because faced with the gore, the nastiness and inhumanity of these acts the people may conclude that it was the government itself that sowed the seeds of these acts, conspired with and gave comfort to said people and groups all the while rendering individual people powerless to stop it by infringing on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- and did all of the above intentionally.
Were the people to reach that conclusion they'd be correct and in response they might revoke their consent to said government entirely and demand it depart.
A slave is not allowed weapons because he might use them to become free.
Cultures collapse when there is no cohesion remaining -- when the primary means to get ahead is to stomp on someone else's head instead of innovating and when cheating is no longer punished and is celebrated instead. If that is not curtailed then collapse is inevitable -- it is simply a matter of time.
Whether something is "hate speech" is in the eye of the beholder but irrespective of that The First Amendment protects it. Why? Because even the most-vile expression of dislike is one's right to hold and have. To state otherwise is to state a right to control another person's mind and thoughts -- to not only enslave as to labor but to thought itself.
That is profoundly evil. It is what the Communist Chinese are doing right now with the Uyghurs, numbering more than 11 million of their citizens.
This very same act is what our government is now calling on "big companies" to do, it is what the left has repeatedly done to anyone who dares speak against their policies and desires whether on college campuses, in corporate America or in the public square and now we have two Senators who deserve an immediate and long prison term for their threat to knowingly and intentionally violate their oath of office and The First Amendment, including the threat to impose said violation by force.
Celebrities with dim-witted children got them into colleges by paying bribes and cheating. The claim that said students were "blameless" if their test scores were faked or they faked a "disability" to extend time and thus be able to cheat is a lie. Said "students" are fully culpable yet none of them have been charged; not only did every one of them know they didn't compete on the rowing team (for example) any of them who got an extra hour or two to take the SAT or ACT knew damn well they were cheating, whether they knew their answers were being modified or not.
Why did this happen and why aren't the kids in the dock too?
WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.
Colleges claim they need "diversity." That's nonsense; in a meritocracy the best rise irrespective of skin color, race or religion. The fact is that this "diversity need" is met by lowering standards and allowing unqualified people who cannot do the work into the school. This was going on in the 1990s and it has only gotten worse -- much worse -- since. There is, of course, no value in that to a person "selected" via "diversity" if they have to pay full price and will inevitably fail to be able to do the work. This in turn means someone else gets screwed so they don't have to pay full price and they also don't have to do the work they are incapable of. The alleged "degree" conferred by said school is thus rendered meaningless; it no longer denotes competence and to prevent that from being recognized and their "brand" destroyed said colleges conspire with employers and governments, both outwardly and not to "require" said "credentials" for an ever-expanding list of "professions."
In short college is no longer about education; it is about grift, fraud, bribery and slavery. It's a racketeering enterprise writ large and ought to be prosecuted as a felony, starting with the "most-elite" schools. Is it any surprise that a tiny bit of the bribery began six months earlier with so-called "standardized" testing that really isn't and claims of being on a soccer team that were false?
WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.
The Fed is prohibited from buying anything other than government backed securities. Fannie and Freddie paper have on their face the statement that they have no such backing; go online and view any of their prospectuses. I pointed this out more than 10 years ago with a copy of the front page of one such offering out of thousands; every one bears the same statement. That the government bailed them out does not matter. The Fed's transacting in same and their continued ownership is illegal. Rather than change the law (which might provoke a debate over exactly what The Fed "prints") they simply ignore the law and you let them.
The Fed's legal mandate under the law is for stable prices. The Fed's chair and other governors make dozens of speeches a year and testify under oath before Congress to their intent to violate the law with their "2% inflation target." Congress could change that law but doing so might provoke a debate over exactly what The Fed "prints" and so instead both Congress and The Fed ignore the law and you let them.
The truth is that Money is a medium of exchange which you acquire by producing something of value to someone else. It facilitates trade because it is fungible -- that is, you don't need to transact in oranges, chickens or hours of programming a computer; all three can be reduced to money.
You cannot print money because it is impossible to materialize a television, a car, a piece of computer software, gasoline or electrical power out of thin air.
You can print credit, which spends like money. But if you emit credit then what you are claiming is that someone in the future will produce a thing to legitimate what you did. If the people refuse what's left? Force -- slavery in point of fact.
WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.
A Pakastani American named Imran Awan worked for Democrats in Congress from 2004 - 2017. While doing so it is rather apparent he ran a spy ring inside Congress and stole Congressional computer equipment, much of it with the knowledge of Congressional Democrats. Prosecuting him would have inevitably drawn those Democrats into what could have easily wound up being criminal culpability including spying for foreign nations. So they let him go despite proof that he wired more than $280,000 to Pakistan -- funds that very well might have been used to facilitate terrorism!
WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.
It is a felony to restrain trade, attempt to monopolize or fix prices among people who are supposed to be competing. The medical industry does it every single day. Why not when the example set is that if you're rich or powerful (and they are both) you could even spy for a foreign nation and get away with it. We could literally dispose of the entire federal budget deficit, all of the Federal debt, all of the state and local pension problems and cut property taxes in half or more if we put a stop to this crap. They do it because despite the law they have no fear of prosecution. Why should they?
WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.
I can, through hard work, earn a mid-six-figure income and have multiple business ideas that I'd like to develop. I've done it before and can do it again. But given the above examples, along with the myriad things I've watched big business do in the last 20 years and get away with all of them -- acts that were I to do myself I would be prosecuted criminally and go to prison, why would I? If I was to undertake any of those risky ventures and put my capital and intellectual effort at risk any of those people could illegally undermine my product or service, putting me out of business or simply steal it. Unless I was willing to personally kill the persons responsible there is nothing I could do about it and I'd go broke. I will not undertake such a venture for as long as all of this crap exists, and that's why. I instead choose to hike, ski, run, drink beer and enjoy a much lower stress lifestyle. I do not need any of the trappings of wealth; they're options. When my time comes to die those ideas, products and services intentionally left undeveloped will die with me instead of being produced.
WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW.
The Christchurch shooter, obviously nuts, wrote a "manifesto" which governments are actively trying to suppress your ability to read. In it he pointed out an inconvenient truth -- that there is no nation with a material white population percentage in which white women are reproducing at a replacement or better rate. That is, unless this changes white people will eventually go extinct.
We bemoan a little fish, frog or bird disappearing but there is literally not one word in the media about the most-productive and innovative differentiated group of human beings ever to walk the planet heading directly for extinction by their own voluntary decision. Why are white women choosing not to bear children? Maybe it's because a goodly number of them have come to the same conclusion I have -- that there is no rule of law -- and thus unless they're so rich they can cheat like those who did so to get their kids into college their offspring have no chance of success on a merit basis and they thus make the entirely reasonable decision not to create children at all. After all why would you willingly and intentionally bring a child into this world if you believe they are going to be enslaved and mercilessly robbed for their entire lives?
Rather than correct that problem governments instead are importing people who have not yet made that determination or worse, believe and are explicitly promised that they can simply put their hand out and force others to provide whatever they want and need -- and thus those people make the entirely reasonable decision to breed like rabbits!
WE HAVE NO RULE OF LAW AND WE ARE GOING TO LITERALLY EXTINGUISH WHITE PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN WORLD AS A RESULT. AS FURTHER POPULATION SEGMENTS ARE TAPPED TO BE THE VICTIMS OF SAID POLICIES THEY WILL CHOOSE NOT TO REPRODUCE AS WELL AND INEVITABLY THEY WILL ALSO GO EXTINCT, ONE AT A TIME.
We have in fact become so depraved that our own government is giving cats diseases on purpose to study them and even though those diseases are easily curable and the animals could then be adopted out that takes a bit of effort and more than a a nickel in cost so they kill them instead. That would be bad enough but our government is also importing cats and dogs from nations around the world for the purpose of meat to feed said study subjects, practicing animal cannibalism. We can't be bothered to use byproducts of human food production; you see, that might cost a bit more money.
I'm not the only one who recognizes this; here's another article pointing out many of the same things.
America is extended, riddled with debt and too reliant on ever more debt, past its growth peak, incapable and unwilling to address structural issues. Both political parties have given up on dealing with debt, illusory monetary policies such as MMT are invented to render structural issues as irrelevant. Meanwhile wealth inequality keeps expanding from administration to administration no matter who is in charge with voters distracted by the ideological divisions of the day, not trusting their leaders or each other.
And all this with 3.8% unemployment. What will this all look like during the next downturn? Nobody knows. Rome showed us to not take civilization for granted. It also showed us to not ignore structural problems before they become too large to tackle.
Sven may be hopeful but I am not. I'm not alone either. Charles Hugh Smith has written a number of columns on this same point, including just recently.
I challenge you to show me just one "grand idea" or modern stock market rocketship that is not a scam in some form over the last 10+ years. Netflix, as just one example, effectively stole their entire distribution infrastructure, which is very expensive, through various forms of browbeating and when that was threatened they got the government to mandate their ability to force non-customers to pay for what they wanted during the Obama Administration. Then, when Obama left, both he and his wife got a multi-million dollar contract from the company. You don't really think that was the kickback payment to the former President since the stock went from ~$5 when Obama took office to nearly $400 now....
I've written on many of these other firms, in detail, over the last decade. None of them would exist were there an even-handed enforcement of the law for the simple reason that all of them violate the basic law of business balance: The more people who touch a transaction the more it costs -- always. The reason for that is simple: Nobody works for free and if you think you've found someone who is someone else is stealing from them because no rational person will perform work that benefits only someone else.
THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.
This can't -- and won't -- change without Americans rising up by the millions and demanding that it stop and be willing to enforce that demand by whatever means are necessary. This does not mean violence is required but until and unless those who claim to be "our leaders" believe that any such demand has the force of the people behind it and will be enforced should they stick up their middle finger toward common people once again as they have done for the last 30+ years they have no reason to stop stealing, stop rigging the system and stop screwing everyone else.
There's no reason for me to be hopeful because there is no reason to believe that Americans, say much less the people in any of the other developed, western nations will in fact demand this crap stop. In fact there is every reason to simply sit back and enjoy what little time is left, given that within the next six years tipping points will be reached in the US on a budget and monetary basis that will destroy the illusion of "growth and prosperity" and from which there is little or no chance of recovery.