Lloyd, I must point out that I'm the one who wrote that response: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =165#p6404 .Lloyd wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 9:33 pm I said: All Politics (from Communism to Capitalism) Are Controlled by the Ruling Class for the Ruling Class
http://mileswmathis.com/reed.pdf
JacMac said: Lloyd, first, I don’t agree with the above statement since I don’t think Trumpism meets that criteria. In fact, I think Trump and his followers are more akin to the Founders of this country who risked their “Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor” to do so.
To a certain extent I agree, and they're mostly related because of the machinations of Fabian Socialists over the past century. As I've noted, I now believe there is a UNIPARTY consisting of top democrats and establishment republicans in the US, who work together behind the scenes to further the goals of Fabian Socialism. Up until Trump came along to challenge that, they were able to fool most American voters. They got into the habit of just trading places in the Oval Office every 8 years to give the appearance of a two party system. In public, top members of the two parties acted like they were adversaries, but in private they were VERY chummy. And when Democrats were in control there were major advances in the Fabian cause. But when Republicans took control ... even with both houses of Congress and the Presidency in their hands, little progress was made in rolling back the Democrat's progress toward a socialist/communist state. Top Republicans talked big, but they didn't actually walk the walk. There were always excuses ... often fear of a media reaction ... and the conservative voters accepted those excuses thinking that at least establishment Republicans were the lessor of two evils. In short, establishment Republicans were merely acting as placeholders until the next Democrat administration could again push the boundaries closer to outright authoritarian communism.
Over seas, the UK is still a bastion of Fabian thought. The London School of Economics and the Fabian Society remain well respected and there are many Fabians in the top rank of the government. Australia is now controlled by Fabian Socialists, too (and look what they're doing to the country using Covid-19 as the excuse). India went through a period controlled by Fabian Socialists but the death Nehru, Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi have set that effort back. Fabian Socialism is also alive and well in New Zealand. Israel has a growing Fabian presence, too. So yes, they are all related, at least to this extent. That's why they get together for meetings like the Bilderberger Group and the World Economic Forum in Davos.
That's right. I can only think of one communist leader who practiced what he preached. The rest we're either already wealthy and became wealthier while in power or started out poor and became obscenely rich. Consider Mao's China. His programs probably led to the starvation of 30-40 million people, during which time, Mao celebrated his 66th birthday with a huge feast for 80 of his closest advisors … a feast which included such Chinese delicacies as bird’s nest soup with baby doves and shark fin soup. While he ran a country where the average daily caloric intake was about 1500, he was a gourmet who had his favorite foods flown to Beijing from all over the country and world. In a country were housing was so tight that often three generations would live in one room, he had more than 50 estates, with whole mountains and lakes cordoned off for his private use. Such is the wealth of top socialists/communists. Yet, many of Obama's closest associates and friends still idolize Mao. Imagine that.
And the leaders of today’s China live a life that is luxurious compared to the average Chinese citizen. One of the most sensitive topics in China … the one that will get a news organization’s website blocked from China’s internet for sure … is discussing the wealth of it’s leadership. Reporting about their amazing, UNEQUITABLE wealth is what got the NYTimes and Bloomberg websites blocked. Reports like this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ke-paupers “The richest 70 members of China’s legislature added more to their wealth last year than the combined net worth of all 535 members of the U.S. Congress, the president and his Cabinet, and the nine Supreme Court justices.” Meanwhile, the average Chinese citizen made about $4,800 a year. According to Bloomberg, the President of China, Xi Jinging, had a net worth in the hundreds of millions (at least) … of course all *held* by someone else in his family which has a reported net worth of over $1 Billion. One of the reasons the NYTimes and Bloomberg were cut off from China’s internet is that they reported on that. The leadership of China drive luxury sedans (their kids drive top end sports cars), have special schools for their kids, get organic food from special government owned farms, can depend on special medical facilities … and the even get purified air on those days when the average citizen is breathing dense smog from China's numerous coal fired power plants.
Or consider Stalin's Soviet Union. Stalin’s SUMMER residence was immense. And he wasn't alone. While the average Soviet citizen later on was crammed into an apartment with ten others and endured considerable hardship, the Soviet leadership lived in luxurious secure communities with access to private supermarkets, private restaurants, private hospitals, private schools. They had private vacation resorts. They drove around in Zil luxury sedans and even had lanes reserved for them on Moscow highways called “Zil lanes”. Meanwhile, the ordinary citizen in the USSR couldn't even get clean sheets and needles in the hospitals they had to use, assuming they could even get the medicines to fill them with.
Or look at North Korea. Kim Jong-un’s net worth was estimated to be at least $5 billion dollars even though the country is one of the world’s most impoverished countries. According to a nice leftist source, he lived a life of "unbelievable luxury" . According to the Borgen Project, a campaign against poverty, most North Koreans earn between $2 and $3 PER MONTH. A 2017 study by the United Nations revealed that 18 million people in North Korea (that's more than two-thirds the population) were not getting near enough food, and North Korean women are especially at risk of suffering from malnutrition. Sorry, the picture painted by aspiring communists is not the reality.
How about Cuba? Fidel Castro liked to claim he was a modest man (at times claiming he made just 900 pesos ($43) a month and lived in a “fisherman’s hut”). But the reality is that he had a net worth of about a BILLION dollars (in comparison, the average income of Cubans was under $20 PER MONTH) and lived a life of luxury, according to his longtime bodyguard who wrote a book “The Double Life of Fidel Castro: My 17 Years as Personal Bodyguard to El Líder Maximo". According to that bodyguard, Castro kept 20 secret, luxurious properties throughout the country, including one on an island that he accessed via his personal yacht. On the mainland, his homes included an ‘immense’ Havana estate with a rooftop bowling alley, personal hospital and indoor basketball court, and a seaside villa with pool, jacuzzi and sauna" ... all while the average Cuban family lived in something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ02riFkBZA . There are plenty of internet sources about this inequity.
And don't forget Venezuela. Hugo Chavez died with a net worth of $1 BILLION dollar while the citizens couldn't even find toilet paper on the shelves of their local grocery store ... assuming they had enough money to buy a roll. According to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... posed.html , "the late-president's family owns 17 country estates, totalling more than 100,000 acres, with liquid assets of over $550 million stored in various international bank accounts, according to Venezuelan news website Noticias Centro." But, of course, leftists like Sanders claimed Hugo was a *man of the people*.
Sorry, but I do view Trump as a bit of a hero given that he has risked his fortune and life to try and stop the tyranny that Fabian Socialists were and still are trying to bring to America. And many of the Founders were equally heroic, with many of them truly risking their lives and fortune against an enemy that had the largest and most powerful military in the world, controlled by what amounted to a ruthless dictator. And unlike almost any politician you can name, Trump carried through with most of the promises he made to the best of his ability. And that's with all the UNIPARTY establishment embedded in the government and his adminstration working against him day and night. That's with almost the entire dishonest mainstream media establishment opposing him. That's with the DOJ, FBI and intelligence agencies you mention working against him. That's with much of Congress ... even key UNIPARTY members of his own party working against him. His opponents tried every trick they could to bring him down and didn't ... and still haven't. They only got back into power in 2020 by outright cheating in an election ... and this is undeniable to anyone who actually looks at the evidence.
Sorry, Lloyd, but I'm afraid the idea that increasing federal spending and printing money doesn't cause inflation is nonsense. Sundance at Conservative Treehouse agrees (https://theconservativetreehouse.com/bl ... to-differ/), after noting that Biden has essentially been making that claim ... that federal spending doesn't increase inflation.Lloyd wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 9:33 pm the best info I've seen on economics is at https://mythfighter.com/ . The writer there is over 85 years old by now, I think, but he seems to be smart on economics ... snip ... Anyway, he explains on his site that some countries, like the U.S., the U.K., China, Japan and one or more others are monetarily sovereign. That means they can never run out of their own money. And they can create as much money as they want to improve their economies without significantly increasing inflation. Inflation is due to scarcity, not to too much money. Federal taxes are entirely unnecessary and are not used to pay for federal government programs.
Sundance observes:
Likewise the notion that printing money doesn't cause inflation is not what most every economist in the world teaches. They teach that if you print more money, the amount of goods doesn’t change. But households will have more cash and more money to spend on goods so there is more money chasing the same amount of goods. Unless the goods supply is unlimited, firms will just raise prices in that event. And in almost every example you can names, the goods supply is not unlimited. So inflation is going to be the result of printing money. And history proves it. A further proof is that those countries that have printed large amounts of money have had their currency devalued by those countries that have not. That's clear evidence of inflation in the countries that printed lots of money.Questioned today about inflation, Joe Biden starts talking about his Build Back Better program. It really is worth watching to see how oddly emphatic he is in the belief that if government pays for a thing (childcare, healthcare, prescriptions) the cost of that thing somehow mysteriously disappears.
Biden believes that if government subsidizes something there is no longer a cost associated with it. He believes this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ii3rV2sRDk&t=1300s
Setting aside the historic fact/truth that anything government pays or subsidizes ultimately costs more, the real cognitive dissonance in Biden’s worldview is that any cost associate with a ‘thing‘ disappears if the government pays for that ‘thing’. From that bizarre viewpoint, the disappearance of public expense for that government subsidized thing then creates “deflation”, or a lowering in overall prices.
This claim is abject nonsense. Truly and genuinely batshit crazy nonsense.
Example. According to Joe Biden’s talking point: if government pays for college education, the price of a college student’s car drops. It doesn’t. To make that claim is absurd in the extreme. The college student may have more money to pay for a car if they are not paying for tuition, but the car itself doesn’t change in price.
A person may have more money to pay for groceries if they are not paying for childcare expenses, but the price of the groceries doesn’t change. The inflation on the prices of products at the grocery store does not change just because some families no longer have daycare expenses. But Joe Biden believes it does.
Regarding the price of something once government starts subsidizing that something, consider this:
https://pics.me.me/price-changes-jan-19 ... 486957.png
Notice the correlation between the affordability of something once the government starts subsidizing it?
Perhaps the worst part of Joe Biden’s policy implementation is his actual belief in it.
This is what happens when your entire life is centered in a bubble or echo-chamber of academics, politicians and think-tanks that have no connection whatsoever to Main Street and common sense.
You might also want to know that Rodger Malcolm Mitchell calls himself a businessman (President of Rodger M Mitchell Advertising) and an economist. But beware, I don't think he's who he claims to be. First, I find very little about his business and no details whatsoever regarding his education. I find nothing to indicate he's a degreed economist.
I did find several books by him published by his advertising company ... one in particular from 1977 titled "The Ultimate America: Unlimited Power and Total Control, Building Our Perfect World". I can imagine a Fabian Socialist writing such a book given that several already did (Wells, House and Chase). Here's what the book says on the cover
https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-America ... B0021ONTMY
Now if he believed that pie in the sky utopianism back in 1977, do you really think he was a conservative? He claims to have "mostly voted Republican" prior to 5 years ago. Why wouldn't he have voted Democrat back then given those beliefs? The Republicans were even less likely to believe such nonsense back then, than now. So call me suspicious.This amazing book will change your life. Read how we will end federal taxes and prevent inflation -- how we will build a Medicare/Medicaid system that truly protects our health, and create a Social Security that truly protects our future -- all easily affordable. We will curtail poverty and make street crime disappear. Our schools will give our children the finest education. Our air, land and water will be clean and our infrastructure will be modern and the power of our army will end even the possibility of war. We will create a nation and then a world where we take control of our lives and our destiny. The system that will make it all possible: "The Ultimate America."
The Ultimate America is neither fantasy nor distant. It is real. It is imminent. It is within our grasp. We have the power, we have the knowledge and the money to make it happen. Now.
Furthermore, in the https://mythfighter.com link, he cites The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) and asks if that "Republican Party, led by William Buckley, still exist[s]" Now that is curious because the ISI and William F Buckley, Jr. have clearly been part of the Fabianization of America. Buckley founded the National Review, which we now know for certain by their anti-Trump statements and actions the past 7 years is a front for the RINOs in the UNIPARTY. You need only look at the titles of the articles they published to know this. You need only look at the other lead authors of the publication. So if Rodger Mitchell is saying Republicans should be like William Buckley, BEWARE.
Furthermore, in your supplied link, Bill Mitchell goes on to attack Republicans, not for their economics, but by saying their opposition to schools teaching Critical Race Theory is akin to "government book burning." Then he attacks Republicans for being against mandated masks. After that he attacks them for rightly questioning the legitimacy of the Democrat committee *investigating* the January 6th "capital attack". Then he cites a CNN list of "Trump's Lies". And it goes on an own, with the same sort of rants you hear from lifelong progressives these days. Seriously, does that sound like anyone who was EVER a Republican? Sorry, Lloyd, by what he wrote in that link you supplied, proves he is clearly a lifelong hardcore leftist ... which makes perfect since he apparently lived in Illinois before retiring to Florida. In fact, I doubt he was ever once voted Republican. I doubt he was an economist.
One last comment, there is a Bill Mitchell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mitchell_(economist)) who is an economist ... a professor at the University of Newcastle in Australia. And he appears to be, ironically, a Fabian Socialist. A self proclaimed "progressive", he recently made a presentation to New Zealand Fabian Society: https://www.fabians.org.nz/index.php?op ... &Itemid=79 . You can see why Fabians would like the idea that money grows on trees like he suggests. And maybe in his old age, Roger M. Mitchell is confusing himself with this man?
And isn't it odd that almost everywhere one turns, one encounters Fabian Socialists? One begins to wonder why something that seems to have had (and has) so many tentacles in what's going on is not taught in school? It's hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream media or any media the general public might encounter. If you look at the description of the Fabian Society in the Encylopedia Britanica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... an-Society), you find just 141 innocuous words.
NOTHING about it's Marxist roots. Nothing about it's real goals as stated by important Fabian Socialists like Stuart Chase and George Bernard Shaw. Nothing about it's influence on America politics. It's a total whitewash. Check out any encyclopedia and you'll find the same thing. Then go compare the above to the descriptions and length of Marxism. Ask yourself if that is not deliberate ... to keep the Fabian movement below the public's radar.Fabian Society, socialist society founded in 1884 in London, having as its goal the establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great Britain. The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution.
The name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. Its founding is attributed to Thomas Davidson, a Scottish philosopher, and its early members included George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Annie Besant, Edward Pease, and Graham Wallas. Shaw and Webb, later joined by Webb’s wife, Beatrice, were the outstanding leaders of the society for many years. In 1889 the society published its best-known tract, Fabian Essays in Socialism, edited by Shaw. It was followed in 1952 by New Fabian Essays, edited by Richard H.S. Crossman.
If modern astrophysics and climate alarmism has taught me anything, it's that most simulations are worthless and often misused by those with agendas.