Hitpiece on Rafeeg from pissiepants

[Ognir]

And we still can't call this guy out, still can't post a comment    
What is he afraid of ?

______________________________________________________________________________________


Thursday, July 29, 2010
One of the Many Faces of the Jew Who Calls Himself "Muhammad Rafeeq"

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www jewishracism com

http://www jewishracism blogspot.com

A friend has emailed me a link to a video of the Jew whose real name begins with "Paul Rupert", but who calls himself "Muhammad Rafeeq", in which he shows his face. Why does he show his face, but does not tell us his name? Note that his roots in the "City" of London, the Rothschild dominated banking district of England, are again revealed in the description of the videos:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

"Muhammad" wants to destroy the American dollar as the reserve currency for international settlements, and substitute another currency to be created by his "new super power" and its partners in this endeavor. This will destroy America, that America "Muhammad's" partner Daryl Bradford Smith wants to see fall to revolution. "Muhammad" reveals that he is involved in high level talks with China, and we must ask him what country it is that he would make the new world ruler, to the detriment and inevitable destruction of the US? I note that many of "Muhammad's" supporters on the internet are British (Jews?) and expressly despise the US and want to see it ruined.

Not only is "Muhammad" instituting international policies which will inevitably ruin us, and the West including of all of Europe and all Whites, he claims the preposterous panacea of basing international currency exchange rates on mandated minimum wages for each nation will improve the lot of humanity. He uses as a pretext the very real destructive effects of floating exchange rates on currencies to propose the even more devastating proposal, which would ruin our dollar and our way of life, of fixing the value of our dollar and our goods on the poorest of the poor so as to drag us down to their level in the name of providing equal purchasing power at a minimum to every person on the globe. This is internationalism at its worst in the form of the lowest common denominator destroying the highest living standard. This is worse still than communism!

Imagine the downward spiral of poor countries inflating their currency to swap it for dollars at an unrealistic and bandit rate, whereby the poorest worker on Earth obtains the most value for his labor–but it is the governments in debt who would most benefit, together with the rich who could float between swaps running up their wealth exponentially to buy up everything just before the ponzi scheme collapsed. What better way to pave the road to the Jews' international currency, and universal poverty? No wonder "Muhammad" is so fond of Madoff!

If you are an American, European, or any member of the former British Empire, "Muhammad's" plans, if they succeed, will doom you to fourth world status in very short order. Does the Jew who calls himself "Muhammad", but won't tell us his real name, gather his "wisdom" from the house of Rothschild, whom he defended against my claims?

[superzebra]

i am shocked but i am not shock from Christopher Jon Bjerknes, i am shocked from you ognir.

ognir as old truthseeker you now that jews should not be trusted.

never trust a jew.

 Christopher Jon Bjerknes  is a jew that means he is a liar that means also he preffers to protect criminals jews like him rather than to fight.

every jew that i had conversasition with he prreffered to protect the criminals.
they all worked side by side and they all evil

[Ognir]

What are you on about?

[Negentropic]

Christopher Jon Bjerkness wrote:
he claims the preposterous panacea of basing international currency exchange rates on mandated minimum wages for each nation will improve the lot of humanity.

this part of his hit-piece is a valid criticism as far as economics policy goes;  minimum wages do not work and are destructive economically. This can be proven easily with a little analysis and has been in many free-market economics books and articles (see links below). However, I am sure Rafeeq has a good explanation for why he advocated  this easy-to-prove-as-destructive policy (read links below) or to what extent and purpose.   As far as I know from their audio files archives,  Rafeeq's strictly economic ideas are very close to DBS's which are essentially libertarian and pro non-usurious true-free-market creative-capitalism and anti the destructive-parasitic-mercantile-protectionist mixed-economy capitalism that is deliberately imposed today, more or less.  Minimum wages are protectionist policy that do not even benefit the poor they are supposedly supposed to help.  Libertarian and free-market economic theory is totally against any minimum wage laws.  It would be interesting to hear what DBS has to say about this.

Here are some links. I don't want to hear any this guy's a Jew, that guy's a Jew and why-won't-this-guy-admit-he's-a-Jew-since-he-worked-in-a-Jew-neighborhood dismissals and CBJ-type bullshit.  No far-fetched conspiracy theories as to how Mises and Rothbard and Libertarians work for the banksters in some multi-tentacled super-illumanti divide-&-conquer plan either. Just read their arguments and use your own common sense and logic:  

Making Economic Sense
by Murray Rothbard
Chapter 36
Outlawing Jobs: The Minimum Wage, Once More
http://mises.org/Econsense/ch36.asp


Clear Thinking About the Minimum Wage

http://libertariananarchy.com/2010/05/clear-thinking-about-the-minimum-wage/
The Minimum Wage Hurts the Poor
by Jacob G. Hornberger

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-23.asp

Abolish the minimum wage « Cambridge University Conservative Association

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/abolish-the-minimum-wage-cambridge-university-conservative-association/

Minimum Wage - it's more government!

http://www.libertarian-logic.com/minimum-wage.html
Minimum Wage - Libertarian Party UK
http://lpuk.org/pages/manifesto/economy/minimum-wage.php

So, aside from this minimum-wage-advocacy criticism of Rafeeq by CBJ which is valid the rest of CBJ's ridiculous rant made me lose any respect I had left for him for his past investigative journalism achievements. If he's an agent provocateur who did the valid journalism to establish street-cred, then he's done a pathetically terrible job of maintaining that cred.  

Superzebra wrote:
Christopher Jon Bjerknes is a jew that means he is a liar that means also he preffers to protect criminals jews like him rather than to fight.

Actually, he's only a quarter Jew as he states in the very beginning of this video  here


[youtube:m6ckp3bn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBFleg8nvzg[/youtube]m6ckp3bn]


so does that make him only a quarter-of-a-liar?  :lol:  All you're doing by that Jew-name-calling is the opposite side of the coin of what CBJ is doing by his Jew-name-calling.  It's basically: he called someone I respect a Jew so I'm calling him a Jew!  Since Jews can't be trusted anyway that will mean the end of any argument. No it won't. What does silly shit like that prove?  Not a goddamn thing! A valid point isn't going to go away because of any name calling and no matter how lame the rest of his arguments are.

The minimum-wage criticism is VALID. Most of the rest of what CBJ says is irrelevant.  The most irrelevant being why-won't-he-say-he's-a-Jew when MR already said he was raised Christian and converted to Islam.  Futhermore, CBJ already said that 'he has no reason to doubt Rafeeq's claim' on his own blog so WTF?


from CBJ's own blog:

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2008/12/muhammad-rafeeq-is-jewish-banker.html

Note that since the publication of this article, "Muhammad Rafeeq" has stated that he is a convert from Christianity to Islam and that he was raised as a Christian, and I have no reason to doubt his claim. I have addressed "Muhammad's" response here:

Daryl Bradford Smith and "Muhammad Rafeeq" Versus the Facts: December 28, 2008

"Muhammad's" response of 28 December 2008 can be found here:
http://iamthewitness.com

For a guy who has a website called "Jewish-Racism" CBJ sure practices a lot of race-baiting himself.

[superzebra]

i said jews should not be trrusted.

as for the comment you can delete.

sorry for that.

[Negentropic]

This will destroy America, that America "Muhammad's" partner Daryl Bradford Smith wants to see fall to revolution.

Yeah, right on target CJB!  :lol: I've got to hand it to you, you're a deep thinker.  :clap: You mean, just like Andrew Jackson's revolution by booting the banksters out destroyed America?  Does cutting or removing the parasite from the host imply wanting to kill the host? If so, what do you advocate a permanent host-to-parasite relationship?  DBS wants to see America destroyed about as much as Eustace Mullins or Ezra Pound did before him. DBS wouldn't even be in the truth movement if it wasn't for trying to save whatever's left from the true America of Jackson's and Jefferson's and Franklin's legacy, which earned whatever esteem and goodwill it achieved around the world, from being eaten up by the Frankenstein monster of what America has deliberately been engineered to become destroying that goodwill and esteem in a mere few decades.


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
- Phillip K. Dick

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I'd like to see CJB become a "Fighting Goyim" against Jew Scams... he's a fence sitter IMHO... and will jump down when sees a winner... but he knows which is a Jewish Scam and which is a possible life and death fight.  Rafeeq is girded for the fight IMHO... girded to rid the parasites.

[Christopher Marlowe]

this part of his hit-piece is a valid criticism as far as economics policy goes; minimum wages do not work and are destructive economically. This can be proven easily with a little analysis and has been in many free-market economics books and articles

Rafeeq's idea of basing the currency on the value of labor is a valid one and has been by Ben Franklin, who was a great genius, a printer, writer, scientist, statesman, and patriot.

(From: "A MODEST ENQUIRY INTO THE Nature and Necessity OF A PAPER-CURRENCY"  
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/users/brock/webdoc6.html
But as it would be very tedious, if there were no other Way of general Dealing, but by an immediate Exchange of Commodities; because a Man that had Corn to dispose of, and wanted Cloth for it, might perhaps in his Search for a Chapman to deal with, meet with twenty People that had Cloth to dispose of, but wanted no Corn; and with twenty others that wanted his Corn, but had no Cloth to suit him with. To remedy such Inconveniences, and facilitate Exchange, men have invented MONEY, properly called a Medium of Exchange, because through or by its Means Labour is exchanged for Labour, or one Commodity for another. And whatever particular Thing Men have agreed to make this Medium of, whether Gold, Silver, Copper, or Tobacco; it is, to those who possess it (if they want any Thing) that very Thing which they want, because it will immediately procure it for them. It is Cloth to him that wants Cloth, and Corn to those that want Corn; and so of all other Necessaries, it is whatsoever it will procure. Thus he who had Corn to dispose of, and wanted to purchase Cloth with it, might sell his Corn for its Value in this general Medium, to one who wanted Corn but had no Cloth; and with this Medium he might purchase Cloth of him that wanted no Corn, but perhaps some other Thing, as Iron it may be, which this Medium will immediately procure, and so he may be said to have exchanged his Cloth for Iron; and thus the general Exchange is soon performed, to the Satisfaction of all Parties, with abundance of Facility.

For many Ages, those Parts of the World which are engaged in Commerce, have fixed upon Gold and Silver as the chief and most proper Materials for this Medium; they being in themselves valuable Metals for their Fineness, Beauty, and Scarcity. By these, particularly by Silver, it has been usual to value all Things else: But as Silver it self is no certain permanent Value, being worth more or less according to its Scarcity or Plenty, therefore it seems requisite to fix upon Something else, more proper to be made a Measure of Values, and this I take to be Labour.

By Labour may the Value of Silver be measured as well as other Things. As, Suppose one Man employed to raise Corn, while another is digging and refining Silver; at the Year's End, or any other Period of Time, the compleat Produce of Corn, and that of Silver, are the natural Price of each other; and if one be twenty Bushels, and the other twenty Ounces, then an Ounce of that Silver is worth the Labour of raising a Bushel of that Corn. Now if by the Discovery of some nearer, more easy or plentiful Mines, a Man may get Forty Ounces of Silver as easily as formerly he did Twenty, and the same Labour is still required to raise Twenty Bushels of Corn, then Two Ounces of Silver will be worth no more than the same Labour of raising One Bushel of Corn, and that Bushel of Corn will be as cheap at two Ounces, as it was before at one; ceteris paribus.

Thus the Riches of a Country are to be valued by the Quantity of Labour its Inhabitants are able to purchase, and not by the Quantity of Silver and Gold they possess; which will purchase more or less Labour, and therefore is more or less valuable, as is said before, according to its Scarcity or Plenty. As those Metals have grown much more plentiful in Europe since the Discovery of America, so they have sunk in Value exceedingly; for, to instance in England, formerly one Penny of Silver was worth a Days Labour, but now it is hardly worth the sixth Part of a Days Labour; because not less than Six-pence will purchase the Labour of a Man for a Day in any Part of that Kingdom; which is wholly to be attributed to the much greater Plenty of Money now in England than formerly. And yet perhaps England is in Effect no richer now than at that Time; because as much Labour might be purchas'd or Work got done of almost any kind, for 100 then, as will now require or is now worth 600....

I think it would be a mistake to confuse Rafeeq's proposal of fixing a nation's currency on the value of labor [labour] with the similar notion of setting a minimum wage standard. The former looks to the value of a nation's currency looking from the outside, and the latter is viewed from a domestic,  state or municipal perspective.  

As Franklin pointed out, money is merely a paper representation of something less easily traded: a commodity, such as silver or gold, or even land. Currently, our US dollar is based on NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

The Libertarian perspective prides itself on leaving everything to be governed by the marketplace, including the marketplace. This of course is foolishness, Libertarianism being the bastard offspring of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, and a two-headed goat. Free markets are an excellent ideal, but they must be regulated in order to remain free. Left to their own devices, the larger players will swallow up the smaller competition, and the free market will be replaced by cartels and monopolies.

"Where some would have money defined in terms of the amount of labor it will purchase, a Libertarian would have money set at the amount needed to coerce someone to throw his grandmother under a bus."
A. Madeupquote

Here's a section from the Libertarian essay on the minimum wage, "Clear Thinking About the Minimum Wage", provided above:

Libertarian Anarchy: Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
...Consider the following thought experiment: suppose that the minimum wage is raised to $1000/hour. What are the implications? Evidently, most employers can't pay that much and they'll go out of business. If that weren't so, we could all become fantastically wealthy just by decreeing a ridiculously high minimum wage. Now suppose that the minimum wage is lowered to $0.01/hour. Again, employers won't pay that wage (even though they'd like to) because other firms are bidding for the same workers, and this drives wages up.

The argument relative to this essay is not "how many dollars must I pay a man to sit at a tedious call center selling worthless sh*te from China?" but rather "what is a dollar worth?" If people are to have control of their own money, then money is created by the laws of that country. The alternative is to have the value of the money set, as it is currently, by international bankers. People setting the value of their own currency is what is meant by sovereign currency. They set the borders of their country, beyond which people of other nations cannot pass without that country's permission. Similarly they create the value of their currency, and leave it to others to trade in that currency.

If the leaders of the country are convinced by a think tank paper that they should lower their currency to make themselves more attractive to foreign buyers, they are really just racing to the bottom along with the other whores. That sort of cheap one-off answer is the type of short-sighted thinking that has no long term benefit. The end result is cheap goods for the international bankers, and poverty for the citizens of the country, who store up value in their national currency.

[§N9sh2bj]

another ignore.

at the risk of stirring up garbage, if a man is a self-described jew, then he in bed with liars, unless we can stretch our conciousness _so_ far as to believe he doesn't know what it means.
Don't give me this 'I don't know what it means to be jew' crap.

You know.

[RoaminLam]

I too am confused, annoyed and frustrated by all this bitter infighting.

The name-calling gambit ( = e.g., "pissiepants") has always put me off. It appears much too frequently on "truth" forums, suggesting that the caliber of analysis here is not as high as we generally take it to be.

I've now done several years of "graduate-level" studies at the U of TFC, so that's really my alma mater. But I'm not such a loyal alumnus as to jump on the bandwagon with all this bashing of  "politically incorrect," rival "truth" tellers.

As a matter of principle, I don't fully trust or blindly subscribe to **any** of the wise and voluble heads out there with a soapbox in cyberspace. On the other hand, even "truth" tellers that I viscerally dislike – and there are quite a few – have given me insights that I'm grateful for.

I haven't studied CJB deeply, but I'm inclined to like him on three accounts.

First, he endorsed and gave a forum to Jim Condit through a couple of lengthy interviews on Condit's extremely insightful material critiquing the Hitler movement and sensibly rehashing the deep politics of the whole WW II era.

Next, CJB did groundbreaking work in two areas that I'd like to explore more fully one day but which, for the time being, strike me as intuitively viable, or at least interesting: (1) the hypothesis that Einstein was not such a great genius after all; that he was essentially another wily Jewish charlatan (like Marx in economics, Freud in psychology, Chomsky in linguistics ... etc.) heavily promoted (largely by other Jews) but having little of real substance to contribute; and (2) that the WW I era "Turkish" genocide of the fine and ancient Christian race of Armenians was in fact instigated by crypto-Jews who called themselves "Young Turks" and who performed other subversive tasks while dismantling the venerable Ottoman Empire.

I'm not very familiar with these areas, so perhaps I've stated the two hypotheses badly. But, unless I'm mistaken, CJB has led the way down a couple lines of research here that I suspect would reward further study.

There's another great "truth" telling pariah of the other "truth" forums, not least TIU, who's contributed a lot to my understanding ... though I disagree with him strongly on various issues. Again, however, I dislike the heavy-duty name-calling and bandwagon abuse this figure invokes.

Eric Hufschmid has repeatedly warned us not to trust anyone in this movement. Sounds like good advice. We should at least be very careful about letting down our guard.

I also like (among much else that's quirky and out-of-the-box) Hufschmid's "masquerade-party" metaphor. We really don't know who or what we're dealing with in any of these encounters. Over many years – from the "mainstream" media, through the "alternative" and "opposition" movements, then into the post 9-11 "truth" environment – over and over again I've seen the masks slip a bit, or come off fully ... and I haven't liked what was revealed beneath.

More and more I wonder if there's anything "out there" that isn't in some way controlled by the Conspiracy – whatever you want to call it, whoever this Conspiracy "really" is.

Perhaps the most exciting political radio I ever listened to was back when Smith, Bollyn and Hufschmid were still a team, feverishly helping each other put the pieces together. Maybe that fresh enthusiasm was just a function of where I was at in my own development. Or maybe we lived in a more innocent world back then – merely 3 or 4 years ago.

I'd bet that most of the others "out there" who are doing their best to penetrate the myriad conspiracies and deceptions feel much as I do – alienated from friends, colleagues and relatives who still believe that Moslem terrorists flew jetliners into the WTC on 9-11 ... and loads of other similar tripe.

As if that weren't enough, when we turn to our most revealing sources Online, we find them tearing each other to pieces.

The infighting may just be partially a consequence of how nerve wracking this work can prove. Smith has spoken recently of how exhausted he is. I can give him credit – and cut him some slack – for that.

But this bitter controversy leaves us more minor thinkers, here at the grassroots, more on our own than ever. Most likely the Opposition contributes to this divisiveness as it's able, to achieve just such an effect.  

It seems the deeper one delves into this Rabbit Hole, the less firm ground there is to stand on.

I don't know what the answer is, where there's a way out, but I do concur with the exasperation expressed by Scott ( = Info).

[Ognir]

pissiepants is not a word I use but it's perfect for mr no comments on his blog
Get him to attack personally  Rafeeg on wUFUS and let us add in as it were

the guy is a coward

WAVE FROM CONCEN

[sirbadman]

CJB is trying to create some division.

He's really trying to butter up the whole American versus British theme.

Was good to see Rafeeq in the vid though.

He doesn't look jewish to me.   He looks like he might have some welsh ancestory in my view.. can be hard to pick these things though. He doesn't have the whole V thing going with the nose you see in a lot of Jewish people.

Has anyone got a photo of CJB and if so can they post it?

Surely CJB has to come out and do a vid now so we can bag him out.

[michaelangelo]

What the fuck is this all about. As far as I'm concerned Rafeeq is genuine, very clever and like DBS someone who really cares. Who cares if he's jewish, Catholic or flaming Buddist. He speaks the truth.

[Ognir]

Actually as far as I know,  his family were involved in one of the prodie churches, could be wrong

[Negentropic]

CJB is trying to create some division.

He's really trying to butter up the whole American versus British theme.

Was good to see Rafeeq in the vid though.

He doesn't look jewish to me. He looks like he might have some welsh ancestory in my view.. can be hard to pick these things though. He doesn't have the whole V thing going with the nose you see in a lot of Jewish people.

Has anyone got a photo of CJB and if so can they post it?

Surely CJB has to come out and do a vid now so we can bag him out.

Dude, and to all the rest of the dudes above:


There is NO debate as to whether Rafeeq was Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Hare Krishna before converting to Islam. He already stated it himself that he was raised totally Christian on the 2 part December 28 2008 shows with DBS back when CJB started this BS and demanded an answer, tenth & eleventh audios down the page over here, the two that say Free HQ :

http://iamthewitness.com/archive.php?dir=audio%2FMuhammad.Rafeeq%2F

Not only that, CJB already knows that MR gave him his answer and said on his own blog he has no reason to doubt him, then he comes out again and starts doubting him!!  He's saying his word isn't enough, what does he want birth certificates, family trees and shit? That's why Ognir called him pissiepants or whatever cuz he knows the score.  

The only thing up for debate is the minimum wage issue CJB brought up which is a form of price-fixing by government enforcement and is not good, if in fact it was minimum wage law Rafeeq was advocating.  Marlowe has brought up some very good points. I have skimmed his post. I think he says MR was advocating something quite different. I'll have to read it again more carefully. If you guys want to get in on the debate go read some of those libertarian links I posted previously on why minimum wage is no good and see if they're not logical in what they say.  If any of you guys are commies or marxists or closet-fascists or  wish all countries of the world were like Sweden you can sit this one out.  :lol:

[sirbadman]

@negen

1. dont call me dude
2. CJB was implying Rafeeq was ethnically jewish
3. I dont recall Rafeeq saying what CJB is claiming in any recent podcasts - and what CJB wrote is pretty ambiguous, unclear and open to different interpretations.

Found a pic of CJB on IAW:



CJB looks more jewish than Rafeeq does of course.  

Think CJB forgot to add a point to the stated "mission" on his website:

MISSION:

        *

          *Expose the three deadly tenets of Judaism and Zionism*
        *

          Critique Jewish Racism, Jewish Tribalism and Jewish Censorship
        *

          Refute the claim that it is anti-Semitic to tell the truth
        *

          Establish a political movement to defend us from Zionism and Jewish Racism
    *

          WRITE CRAP ABOUT DBS, RAFEEQ & TIU + TRY AND STEAL THEIR AUDIENCE

[rodin]

You know I do like Rafeeq and picked up on his videos before I found this thread today.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=206

It re-inforces some doubts I had been having - Rafeeq seemed to me to be espousing a global welfare state over @ IATW recently

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost ... tcount=209

I think Bjerkes is correct about Einstein and have dug deeper into the Relativity Myth. Clocks slow down in space? Heck, a grandfather clock would stop altogether  :lol:

[Negentropic]

1. dont call me dude
2. CJB was implying Rafeeq was ethnically jewish
3. I dont recall Rafeeq saying what CJB is claiming in any recent podcasts - and what CJB wrote is pretty ambiguous, unclear and open to different interpretations.

Found a pic of CJB on IAW:

1. dont call me dude

I have to call you dude, I'm from California, it's genetic by now.  You can call me dude, guy-man-dude,  or homie if you want but don't call me 'dog' like the post-gangsta-rap 'brothers' or a can-of-whup-ass will follow. I even remember DBS calling Hufschmid dude on that famous phone call and DBS is from New England !!  Dude has come a long way since the dude-ranch my friend. :lol:

2. CJB was implying Rafeeq was ethnically jewish

Yes sir, he was or he has since 2008. He was more than implying, he was pretty much DECLARING that he was (because according to CJB only Jews worked in the financial district of London) unless he proved otherwise.

Found a pic of CJB on IAW:

Whaddaya want a cookie?   :lol:  If you look earlier in this thread there's a whole live video of CJB linked talking about the Armenian genocide and what the Jews had to do with it. Yes he does look like your picture, that is not an imposter. In the very first few minutes of that video he gets it out of the way that he's one quarter Jewish with only one Jewish grandparent.

[Whaler]

1. dont call me dude
2. CJB was implying Rafeeq was ethnically jewish
3. I dont recall Rafeeq saying what CJB is claiming in any recent podcasts - and what CJB wrote is pretty ambiguous, unclear and open to different interpretations.

Found a pic of CJB on IAW:

1. dont call me dude

I have to call you dude, I'm from California, it's genetic by now.  You can call me dude, guy-man-dude,  or homie if you want but don't call me 'dog' like the post-gangsta-rap 'brothers' or a can-of-whup-ass will follow. I even remember DBS calling Hufschmid dude on that famous phone call and DBS is from New England !!  Dude has come a long way since the dude-ranch my friend. :lol:

I'm from New England(pretty close to were DBS grew up)...Dude is a very common word here. It has been since I can remember. It's usually used in "are you frigging serious dude?" and not the Cali laid back way.
Here's some more New England phrases and words

alls  - common substitute for "all that." ("Alls I know," "alls I want," etc.)


bagged - arrested; "He got bagged for a DUI."; (Driving Under the Influence)

...as/like balls - used to exaggerate a statement, often about the weather; can be used both positively and negatively ("The Red Sox played like balls today" or "It's warm as balls in here")

bang - to make a left turn (often, "bang a left"; also used often as "bang a U-ie" - make a U turn); sometimes used interchangeably with hang

chowderhead  (sometimes chowdahead) - stupid person

"like a bastard" - an excess of something ("It's raining like a bastard outside.")

packie (also package store) - liquor store

pissa (1) - cool, good: "You hit the Lottery? That's pissa man."; less commonly it can be used instead of pissed to mean drunk: "I had ten beers last night. I was wicked pissa!"

Portugie  - derogatory term for someone of Portuguese ancestry or origin

sketchy  - A term used, most often by teenagers, referring to something strange or out of place (such as a suspicious person).

So don't I - pleonasm, used to agree with a statement; a replacement for "me too"; ("I like the Red Sox." "So don't I.")

wicked  - very; or occasionally cool. Used indiscriminately, can modify anything (e.g.: "Wicked good." "Wicked bad." "Wicked boring.", etc.). Almost always used as an adverb, rather than an adjective; some Bostonians feel it is grammatically improper not to put an adjective or verb after "wicked".

you's guys - Phrase meaning "all of you" or "you all"

Sorry to meander wildly off topic...carry on.

[Negentropic]

I think it would be a mistake to confuse Rafeeq's proposal of fixing a nation's currency on the value of labor [labour] with the similar notion of setting a minimum wage standard. The former looks to the value of a nation's currency looking from the outside, and the latter is viewed from a domestic, state or municipal perspective.

As Franklin pointed out, money is merely a paper representation of something less easily traded: a commodity, such as silver or gold, or even land. Currently, our US dollar is based on NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Well, if I understand Franklin correctly then when a certain amount of labor creates something of service to human beings which can then be bartered or traded for another something created by other human beings, those amounts and types of creative labor become valuable and are thus able to be compensated and repeated.  Once all the impractical methods of payment or mediums of exchange are eliminated humans always arrive at gold and silver, one or the other or often in combination.  Basing the paper receipts on gold or silver always restricts the fractional reserve banking pyramid fraud that the banksters put into overdrive in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act. That's why Ron Paul, being Libertarian, is for the Gold Standard, not because the Banksters own all the gold and told him to go start pushing the Gold Standard. There is no better or more practical measure of money than gold or silver.  You cannot base the value of the currency on the value of labor, without referring to gold or silver because there is no other practical way to measure it, you have to measure it in equivalent weights of gold or silver in order to know what that value is and then print the equivalent notes. Until 1933, United States Federal Reserve Notes were redeemable in the equivalent weight of gold.  The U.S. remained on the Gold Standard internationally until 1971 at which time they simply declared bankruptcy and refused to redeem any dollars held by foreign governments in gold.


As usual Rothbard's masterpiece has by far the best and most tightly argued explanations:

And, indeed, if we look at the world past and present, we find that the money supply has been going up at a rapid pace. It rose in the nineteenth century, too, but at a much slower pace, far slower than the increase of goods and services; but, since World War II, the increase in the money supply — both here and abroad — has been much faster than in the supply of goods. Hence, inflation.

The crucial question then becomes who, or what, controls and determines the money supply, and keeps increasing its amount, especially in recent decades? To answer this question, we must first consider how money arises to begin with in the market economy. For money first arises on the market as individuals begin to choose one or several useful commodities to act as a money: the best money-commodities are those that are in high demand; that have a high value per unit-weight; that are durable, so they can be stored a long time, mobile, so they can be moved readily from one place to another, and easily recognizable; and that can be readily divisible into small parts without losing their value. Over the centuries, various markets and societies have chosen a large number of commodities as money: from salt to sugar to cowrie shells to cattle to tobacco down to cigarettes in POW camps during World War II. But over all these centuries, two commodities have always won out in the competitive race to become moneys when they have been available: gold and silver. [p. 177]

Metals always circulate by their weight — a ton of iron, a pound of copper, etc. — and their prices are reckoned in terms of these units of weight. Gold and silver are no exception. Every one of the modern currency units originated as units of weight of either gold or silver. Thus, the British unit, the "pound sterling," is so named because it originally meant simply one pound of silver. (To see how the pound has lost value in the centuries since, we should note that the pound sterling is now worth two-fifths of an ounce of silver on the market. This is the effect of British inflation — of the debasement of the value of the pound.) The "dollar" was originally a Bohemian coin consisting of an ounce of silver. Later on, the "dollar" came to be defined as one-twentieth of an ounce of gold.

When a society or a country comes to adopt a certain commodity as a money, and its unit of weight then becomes the unit of currency — the unit of reckoning in everyday life — then that country is said to be on that particular commodity "standard." Since markets have universally found gold or silver to be the best standards whenever they are available, the natural course of these economies is to be on the gold or silver standard. In that case, the supply of gold is determined by market forces: by the technological conditions of supply, the prices of other commodities, etc.

From the beginning of market adoption of gold and silver as money, the State has been moving in to seize control of the money-supply function, the function of determining and creating the supply of money in the society. It should be obvious why the State should want to do so: this would mean seizing control over the money supply from the market and turning it over to a group of people in charge of the State apparatus. Why they should want to do so is clear: here would be an alternative to taxation which the victims of a tax always consider onerous.

For now the rulers of the State can simply create their own money and spend it or lend it out to their favorite allies. None of this was easy until the discovery of the art of printing; after that, the State could contrive to change the definition of the "dollar," the "pound," the "mark," etc., from units of weight of gold or silver into simply the names for pieces of paper printed by the central government. Then that government could print them costlessly and virtually ad lib, and then spend or lend them out to its heart's content. It took centuries for this complex movement to be completed, but now the stock and the issuance of money is totally in the hands of every central government. The consequences are increasingly visible all around us.


From "For A New Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard - Chapter 9 : Inflation and the Business Cycle: The Collapse of the Keynesian Paradigm

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

The monetary history of this century has been one of repeated loosening of restraints on the State's propensity to inflate, the removal of one check after another until now the government is able to inflate the money supply, and therefore prices, at will. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System was created to enable this sophisticated pyramiding process to take place. The new system permitted a large expansion of the money supply, and of inflation to pay for war expenditures in World War I. In 1933, another fateful step was taken: the United States government took the country off the gold standard, that is, dollars, while still legally defined in terms of a weight of gold, were no longer redeemable in gold. In short, before 1933, there was an important shackle upon the Fed's ability to inflate and expand the money supply: Federal Reserve Notes themselves were payable in the equivalent weight of gold.

There is, of course, a crucial difference between gold and Federal Reserve Notes. The government cannot create new gold at will. Gold has to be dug, in a costly process, out of the ground. But Federal Reserve Notes can be issued at will, at virtually zero cost in resources. In 1933, the United States government removed the gold restraint on its inflationary potential by shifting to fiat money: to making the paper dollar itself the standard of money, with government the monopoly supplier of dollars. It was going off the gold standard that paved the way for the mighty U.S. money and price inflation during and after World War II.

But there was still one fly in the inflationary ointment, one restraint [p. 183] left on the U.S. government's propensity for inflation. While the United States had gone off gold domestically, it was still pledged to redeem any paper dollars (and ultimately bank dollars) held by foreign governments in gold should they desire to do so. We were, in short, still on a restricted and aborted form of gold standard internationally. Hence, as the United States inflated the money supply and prices in the 1950s and 1960s, the dollars and dollar claims (in paper and checkbook money) piled up in the hands of European governments. After a great deal of economic finagling and political arm-twisting to induce foreign governments not to exercise their right to redeem dollars in gold, the United States, in August 1971, declared national bankruptcy by repudiating its solemn contractual obligations and "closing the gold window." It is no coincidence that this tossing off of the last vestige of gold restraint upon the governments of the world was followed by the double-digit inflation of 1973-1974, and by similar inflation in the rest of the world.

From "For A New Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard - Chapter 9 : Inflation and the Business Cycle: The Collapse of the Keynesian Paradigm

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

The Libertarian perspective prides itself on leaving everything to be governed by the marketplace, including the marketplace.

Actually the libertarian perspective does not consider the free market to be governing anything in the sense that a 'government' of supposed do-gooder individuals has done 'governing' throughout history (show me some examples of this do-gooding and then balance it with the disasters caused by the same group of jolly adventurers).  It considers the free-market 'self-governing' only if it is left free of coercion and force. The free market as long as it's a free market and no one is coerced or defrauded into the transactions they enter into does not need any outside governing, it simply serves as an accurate measure of real prices for goods and services and keeps everyone in check and on their toes because if they don't continue being creative there's no other way of beating their competition.  It's not 'cut-throat' competition, it's live free and create or DIE !!!  Libertarians stand by the principle of Laissez faire or everything is cool until one individual or group of individuals initiates force against another individual. Fraud is a form of force, because by defrauding you rob someone of their free choice based on accurate information and hence their rightful property. So fraud and initiation of force and whatever variations thereof  are the only wrongs. When fraud and initiatory force enter the picture, the 'government'  or whatever entity has been trusted with the agency of SELF-DEFENSE FORCE enters the picture in order to bring the criminals to justice.  They are criminals only because they engaged in initiatory force or took the property of another individual without paying fair-goods value-of-labor money in return for it.  No one is punished for superior production or temporary 'monopoly' through superior abilities as long as no force or fraud was initiated against others, violating their rights, in order to achieve this dominance.

This of course is foolishness, Libertarianism being the bastard offspring of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, and a two-headed goat.

Actually Alan Greenspan has little to do with it, he was a disciple of Ayn Rand at one time, way back in the 50s & 60s when Rand still had her head screwed on relatively straight. Rand's system advocated Von Mises based Laissez Faire capitalism but that's about it.  At one time Greenspan wrote some Von Mises or Austrian-Economics based articles that made a lot of sense. However, his policies at the Fed were anything but libertarian. He said in interviews that he only took the job to try to save what was left of America but it seems like he did the opposite. Actually Libertarianism is a movement fathered by Murray Rothbard, who could be said to be a bastard offspring  of Ayn Rand & Ludwig Von Mises (Rothbard was a student of Mises). Bastard only because Rand virulently and very angrily disowned and dismissed libertarianism for supposedly plagiarizing her and not giving credit which is a bunk of nonsense and taking only parts of her system and discarding the rest, blah blah blah.  Libertarians just took the best of Rand's ideas and discarded the garbage and prospered while Rand's movement sank under the weight of the garbage, turned into a cult and floundered. Rothbard, though he was a gushing admirer of  "Atlas Shrugged" when the book first came out, distanced himself from Rand and the Objectivists from the beginning, citing an uncomfortable feeling of submerging of his own individuality under Rand's as the reason why and  later having observed reality confirm that his gut-instincts had been leading him in the right direction, analyzed exactly how and why Rand & the Objectivists were now a full-fledged cult in one of the most brilliant and insightful essays ever written about cults.

Mises's & Rothbard's Letters to Ayn Rand
http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_4/21_4_3.pdf

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult
by Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

Free markets are an excellent ideal, but they must be regulated in order to remain free. Left to their own devices, the larger players will swallow up the smaller competition, and the free market will be replaced by cartels and monopolies.

Actually there is no need for any pre-emptive 'regulation' or laws whatsoever in a truly free economy as long as the principle of 'not using initiatory force or fraud (which is just a variation of initiatory force') is observed. Government only steps in to defend you as an agent of your self-defense against initiated force or fraud. It arrests the perpetrators and brings them to trial. If somebody's poisoning the environment, making unsafe products, etc., all these are covered by that basic initiation of force and fraud principle. In fact, as soon as you 'regulate' or try to pre-empt possible abuses of the free market, the market is no longer 'free' because you are using the agency of government and passed 'laws' to initiate force (not self defense force) in favor of or 'in protection' of one group of individuals against another group, in advance, before any actual harm has been done. In a free market with no usury or fractional reserve thin-air money created out of nothing financing things but only real money based on gold or silver,  any larger players are only able to become larger players through superior and non-fraudulent ability at providing good and services to consumers. Consumers and private consumer's advocate groups are the judges of what is good or bad for them. No FDA type agencies approve anything. You decide if you want to risk killing yourself by guinea pigging yourself for an untested product or drug or if you want to read consumer reports first by those who investigate such things much better than the FDA ever good for profit. The better job they do at protecting and informing consumers the more readers they have and the more money they make whether on a website or magazine.  No one is prevented from taking certain any food or drug that might be beneficial to them in some way despite some side effects. The only thing prosecuted is fraud. If somebody uses false advertising and deliberately misleads then he will have committed fraud and the government steps in to deal with it.  

Similarly if you become a larger player or even a monopoly through superior ability and fair competition then there is nothing to say about that. Consumers have freely voted to make you the big boss for now. However, since government cannot pass regulations in your favor, you will have to defend your championship and ability to retain consumer votes for your products constantly against competitors who keep you on your toes.  You simply cannot keep anyone out by force, you can only defeat competitors  by being more innovative.  Like I said before, it's motto would be "Live free and create or DIE!!"  In case, you're having nightmares, the system that America had post-Jackson and up to Lincoln was already quite similar to this.  Also, since in a libertarian free market economy, taxes are only voluntary (you can pay taxes to an elected government if you feel their particular self-defence services are up-to-par and  worth it or you can pay premiums into a private security companies, or you can pay nothing to anyone and remain unprotected and rely on other people's charity, it's entirely up to you; everyone obeys the same basic law, non-initiation of force, and when a group becomes outlaw then it's in the interest of all the other groups  to work together to bring the outlaw group to justice) and you have a lot more money to be charitable with to those who are not as blessed as yourself.  Besides, everyone's less bitter all around and much more likely to be big-hearted than in some dog-eat-dog pressure-group-warfare marxist-socialist system.

The argument relative to this essay is not "how many dollars must I pay a man to sit at a tedious call center selling worthless sh*te from China?" but rather "what is a dollar worth?" If people are to have control of their own money, then money is created by the laws of that country. The alternative is to have the value of the money set, as it is currently, by international bankers. People setting the value of their own currency is what is meant by sovereign currency

.

Yes and the only way 'what is a dollar' or any other paper receipt is worth is for it to be tied to actual money which traditionally has always ended up being either gold or silver. Money is just another commodity that emerges from the market itself to become medium of exchange. You don't need a 'country' to have money or laws. The origin of 'countries' is rooted from tribalism and tribal-warfare and protectionism anyway. The only law should be no fraud or force initiated against anyone, the only government self-defence force against fraud and force. That's the end of the story.  That covers an awful lot of ground.  This is not to say your 'country' should necessarily play fair when other 'countries' are not but then this starts the vicious cycle again. The fair people should tell the wily bastards that if they want to trade they have to trade on a level playing field. Bankster fractional reserve money-counterfeiting is the ultimate form of fraud, and the Banksters themselves by far the most low-down criminals in all history, so there can be no liberty of any kind worth its name, until they are out of hte picture.  

They set the borders of their country, beyond which people of other nations cannot pass without that country's permission. Similarly they create the value of their currency, and leave it to others to trade in that currency.

If you have free-markets and creative non-usurious capitalism then borders and countries and passports and such nonsense become irrelevant except framing for  areas of special cultural interest and unique history. You can be as racist as you want or as non-racist as you want, you just can't force your views on anyone else.

For example, if some white-supremacists want to open a restaurant called 'Adolf's Superior Aryan Cuisine' and not let anyone who is not Aryan in, they are allowed to because that's their property and their free choice. If you want to open a restaurant right across the street from them called Leroy's Black Power Soul Food Supreme and not let any honkies and crackas in, you are allowed that as well. However both of them will only have niche markets and non-racists will be free to ostracize anyone they see patronizing these establishments.  Both these restaurants will have a hell-of-a-lot of competition to deal with from another restaurant on that street called Chico's Melting Pot Mexican Fiesta Shack, who by being not racist can cater to all colors and nationalities. When Chico's prospers and the others barely are able to break even, then might decide to liberalize their policies to ease the strain on their pocketbooks. So leaving people free to discriminate illogically tends to discourage discrimination because illogical bigotry is punished right where it hurts them in their wallet.  

No one is kept out of any country for any reason except if they can cause harm to other individuals, such as bring in diseases and crime and fraudulent practices.  In other words, if you have a criminal record you might have some problems in neighborhoods or areas where criminals are not welcome but not otherwise.  

Nobody sets anything with regards to the medium of exchange; no person or group is smart enough to be able to balance all the variables and set a value of the currency, the market when left free does a perfectly good job of that on its own. People much wiser than anyone living today such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin understood this.

If the leaders of the country are convinced by a think tank paper that they should lower their currency to make themselves more attractive to foreign buyers, they are really just racing to the bottom along with the other whores. That sort of cheap one-off answer is the type of short-sighted thinking that has no long term benefit. The end result is cheap goods for the international bankers, and poverty for the citizens of the country, who store up value in their national currency.

Again, the libertarian model already assumes the end of the fractional-reserve counterfeiting operation.  There is no other way to achieve any kind of even semi-permanent freedom for anyone. You root out the criminals first, not work with the criminals the way Greenspan tried to do and failed (if anyone believes him when he says he was genuinely trying to do good in an impossible situation).

Also the main reason even the anarcho-Libertarian experiment is well worth trying is because if it fails and you cannot have free-markets in everything the way logic and reason predicts, then you end up at a limited-government system like America had with the founding fathers anyway except without usury and counterfeiting, similar to the post-Jackson to Lincoln years, except all taxes are volunatary (hee hee haha, no power to print money and voluntary taxes, how's that for keeping government on a leash?).  The trick with that is that no government has ever kept itself limited and government having a monopoly on the legal use of force (only self-defence force in Libertarian limited government; economic meddling and re-distribution force in the conservative models) is likely to try to expand its powers at every chink in the armor until the whole system is once-again corrupted.


All this is much better explained than I could ever explain in Rothbard's masterpiece. If you are interested in Libertarianism even somewhat you should read the whole thing. I guarantee you it's not a boring read and you don't have to be some initiated stuffy intellectual with ten years poli-sci and economics from an approved brain-washing center to 'understand' it the way Marx's 'Capital' is.  

Here's as far as Socialist Freedom ever gets:  :lol:

[youtube:29qekity]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK9PgESFd0I[/youtube]29qekity]

[sirbadman]

1. dont call me dude


I have to call you dude, I'm from California, it's genetic by now. You can call me dude, guy-man-dude, or homie if you want but don't call me 'dog' like the post-gangsta-rap 'brothers' or a can-of-whup-ass will follow. I even remember DBS calling Hufschmid dude on that famous phone call and DBS is from New England !! Dude has come a long way since the dude-ranch my friend. :lol:

I have just realised Scatterbrain's "Dont call me Dude" seems to have mainly been a popular song in Australia.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Wait, so CJB is pissiepants?

[Ognir]

Jaysus you are fast John  :lol:

[Negentropic]

Gold is Money

edited with an introduction by Hans F Sennholz

Well worth reading, especially Chapter 3 " No Shortage of Gold" by
Hans F. Sennholz, keeping in mind what Rafeeq and DBS usually say about the Gold Standard being dangerous

Many economists seem to agree on the virtues of the gold
standard. It limits the power of governments or banks to create
excessive amounts of paper currency and bank deposits, that
is, to cause inflation. It also affords an international standard
with stable patterns of exchange rates that encourage international
trade and investments. But the same economists usually
reject it without much hesitation because of its assumed disadvantages.
The gold standard, they say, does not allow
sufficient flexibility in the supply of money. The quantity of
newly mined gold is not closely related to the growing needs of
the world economy. If it had not been for the use of paper
money, a serious shortage of money would have developed and
economic progress would have been impeded. The gold
standard, they say, also makes it difficult for a single country to
isolate its economy from depression or inflation in the rest of . . .

continued over here:
http://mises.org/books/Gold_is_Money_Sennholz.pdf


Gold is Money

edited with an introduction by Hans F Sennholz

http://mises.org/books/Gold_is_Money_Sennholz.pdf


Hans F. Sennholz (February 3 1922 – June 23 2007) (born in Brambauer, Germany) was an economist from the Austrian school of economics who studied under Ludwig von Mises. After serving in the Luftwaffe in World War II, he took degrees at the universities of Marburg and Köln, then moved to the United States to study for a Ph.D. at New York University. He was Ludwig von Mises's first PhD student in the United States. He taught economics at Grove City College, 1956–1992, having been hired as department chair upon arrival. After he retired, he became president of the Foundation for Economic Education, 1992–1997. Calvinist Political Philosopher, John W. Robbins pointed out in a book printed in honor of Sennholz shortly after his death that "Sennholz, ... rests his defense of a free society on revelation."[1]

Fellow Austrian Joseph Salerno has notably praised Sennholz as an under-appreciated member of the Austrian school who "writes so clearly on such a broad range of topics that he is in danger of suffering the same fate as Say and Bastiat. As Joseph Schumpeter pointed out, these two brilliant nineteenth-century French economists, who were also masters of economic rhetoric, wrote with such clarity and style that their work was misjudged by their British inferiors as 'shallow' and 'superficial'."

2008 U.S. presidential candidate Ron Paul credits his fascination with economics to meeting Sennholz and getting to know him well.

[rmstock]

I wonder why CJB started out with these ridiculous hitpieces on Rafeeg. This quote is absolutely
absurd :

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... calls.html

the poorest worker on Earth obtains the most value for his labor–but it is the governments in debt who would most benefit, together with the rich who could float between swaps running up their wealth exponentially to buy up everything just before the ponzi scheme collapsed. What better way to pave the road to the Jews' international currency, and universal poverty? No wonder "Muhammad" is so fond of Madoff!

To add to the confusion Negentropic then points to a book "Gold is  money" . Again Gold today is worth good value
in  money. But never ever forget who controls and dominates the Gold market. If your a member of the Club you
can indeed store your wealth in gold bars. But if you are thrown back into outlaw status, by your criminal government, dropping a gold bar on the bank counter will only get you arrested. That's maybe a exaggerated view, but replace gold with diamonds, and you will find out that all diamond shops have the same policy, giving their own tribes men normal value in money for these stones, while outsiders are warned not to get shoplifted.

Robert M. Stockmann
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org  mailto:stock@stokkie.net">stock@stokkie.net

[Ognir]

I wonder why CJB started out with these ridiculous hitpieces on Rafeeg. This quote is absolutely
absurd :

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... calls.html

Ah that's ok Robert, he took a 2 week holiday after writing that  

[Negentropic]

To add to the confusion Negentropic then points to a book "Gold is money" . Again Gold today is worth good value
in money. But never ever forget who controls and dominates the Gold market. If your a member of the Club you
can indeed store your wealth in gold bars. But if you are thrown back into outlaw status, by your criminal government, dropping a gold bar on the bank counter will only get you arrested. That's maybe a exaggerated view, but replace gold with diamonds, and you will find out that all diamond shops have the same policy, giving their own tribes men normal value in money for these stones, while outsiders are warned not to get shoplifted.

Robert M. Stockmann

No, I  posted a link to a short chapter in a book called "Gold is Money" called "No Shortage of Gold," which you didn't bother to read. It's ok, it was only a suggestion, you don't have to read it but why comment on what you haven't read? What is this the DBS-Rafeeq personality-cult fan club or an 'anti-zio think-tank' ?  If everybody knows-it-all already as soon as  DBS & Rafeeq declare something, then who needs to think?  Just obey!  I do the opposite, I never obey jack shit just because someone I might respect said it if they only gave half-baked reasons.

What's all this nonsense I hear from DBS and Rafeeq and Alex Jones and the two guys from the 'Money Masters" about 'We can't be on the Gold Standard' because banksters control 'gold,' blah blah. Part of the reason for DBS and Rafeeq being against Ron Paul is that he wrote a book about 'the gold standard'  with some PNAC hack, so that 'proves' it's a sinister plan, blah blah blah.  Gold is money, period. Even in a fiat money system where people have enough faith in the paper to keep accepting it as it buys less and less gold every year and less and less other products, gold and silver still remain the only money, the perfect long term and short term stores of actual created wealth.  That's why their price goes up.

If you're not on Gold and Silver, what the hell standard are they going to be on? cigarrettes? beads? salt? goats? rubbers?   They're just going to pass a law and say a number written on a piece of green paper  is now worth this much bread and this much gas and this much gold and this much 'value of labor' no usury allowed and that's the end of the story?  On what planet? They wouldn't even know what to write on the paper notes if they didn't refer to gold and silver and if they did refer to equivalent weights of gold and silver in a system that prohibited fractional reserve counterfeiting by law, then that would automatically put them on the gold or silver standard again, similar to pre-1913 USA.  When you don't have fractional reserve banking anymore, you HAVE to be on the gold or silver (only actual practical and proven moneys in existence: durable, divisible, s  ) standard, otherwise you wouldn't even know what your receipts are worth in real wages or real good and services!! Even in today's society of depreciating fiat money, more and more money buys less and less gold.  You ALWAYS refer to gold and silvver to establish what your receipts are worth because that's the most practical and acceptable actual money commodity and the easiest way to do it. Banksters control gold?  So what? They always have!  With their kind of legal power of counterfeiting, they own and control all valuable commodities, entire military industrial complexes. The goal is to get them out of the picture. There has never been all that much gold to go around anyway. The less gold available the more each unit of the paper receipts for them buys in equivalent good and services. No gold available? You go mine some more. Banksters own all the mines? You  do what Andrew kick-ass on the banksters and take their gold.  If no sufficient amount of gold or silver are available at all, that's the only time you go and base your receipts on another commodity and not until then, but it still has to be the next best, most practical actual commodity medium of exchange other than gold or silver. Paper money or credit without gold or silver backing is what allowed fractional reserve banking to go haywire.  The U.S. was on the gold standard until 1933. Double-digit inflation followed going off international gold standard in 1971.     Is that all a co-incidence ?  Alex Jones says and DBS & Rafeeq agree that Rothschilds want us to go back on the gold standard so they'll have more trouble inflating the currency at will because that's part of their  their big plan for world government? How do you figure? Wouldn't it be easier to stay off the gold standard?  Do the banksters want a stable, benevolent global dictatorship so much that they propose to put us all back on the gold standard? The banksters have always had way more gold than anyone else; if it was so much in their interest to stay on it, they would have.   They didn't for a good reason. They can't make gold at will the way they always can fiat money not based on gold.





There's no better example of going off the gold standard and performing an economic miracle at the same time than Hitler's Germany. But what was this economic miracle really?  Hitler demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that it was certainly good policy for Germany during the thirties. Was it really good economic policy for the longer term as well?  Was Hitler's Statist-interventionist nationalistic economic 'miracle' on its way to eventually failing under its own weight the usual big-government way despite all intentions, but which history didn't get to record due to the complete destruction of Germany by the Allies:  

Lew Rockwell's opinion of Hitler's economic miracle:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/hitlers-economics.html

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.
 
       

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every "capitalist" democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: "[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire."

Keynes's comment, which may shock many, did not come out of the blue. Hitler's economists rejected laissez-faire, and admired Keynes, even foreshadowing him in many ways. Similarly, the Keynesians admired Hitler (see George Garvy, "Keynes and the Economic Activists of Pre-Hitler Germany," The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 83, Issue 2, April 1975, pp. 391–405).

Even as late as 1962, in a report written for President Kennedy, Paul Samuelson had implicit praise for Hitler: "History reminds us that even in the worst days of the great depression there was never a shortage of experts to warn against all curative public actions.... Had this counsel prevailed here, as it did in the pre-Hitler Germany, the existence of our form of government could be at stake. No modern government will make that mistake again."

On one level, this is not surprising. Hitler instituted a New Deal for Germany, different from FDR and Mussolini only in the details. And it worked only on paper in the sense that the GDP figures from the era reflect a growth path. Unemployment stayed low because Hitler, though he intervened in labor markets, never attempted to boost wages beyond their market level. But underneath it all, grave distortions were taking place, just as they occur in any non-market economy. They may boost GDP in the short run (see how government spending boosted the US Q2 2003 growth rate from 0.7 to 2.4 percent), but they do not work in the long run.

"To write of Hitler without the context of the millions of innocents brutally murdered and the tens of millions who died fighting against him is an insult to all of their memories," wrote the ADL in protest of the analysis published by the Glenview State Bank. Indeed it is.

But being cavalier about the moral implications of economic policies is the stock-in-trade of the profession. When economists call for boosting "aggregate demand," they do not spell out what this really means. It means forcibly overriding the voluntary decisions of consumers and savers, violating their property rights and their freedom of association in order to realize the national government's economic ambitions. Even if such programs worked in some technical economic sense, they should be rejected on grounds that they are incompatible with liberty.

So it is with protectionism. It was the major ambition of Hitler's economic program to expand the borders of Germany to make autarky viable, which meant building huge protectionist barriers to imports. The goal was to make Germany a self-sufficient producer so that it did not have to risk foreign influence and would not have the fate of its economy bound up with the goings-on in other countries. It was a classic case of economically counterproductive xenophobia.

And yet even in the US today, protectionist policies are making a tragic comeback. Under the Bush administration alone, a huge range of products from lumber to microchips are being protected from low-priced foreign competition. These policies are being combined with attempts to stimulate supply and demand through large-scale military expenditure, foreign-policy adventurism, welfare, deficits, and the promotion of nationalist fervor. Such policies can create the illusion of growing prosperity, but the reality is that they divert scarce resources away from productive employment.

Perhaps the worst part of these policies is that they are inconceivable without a leviathan state, exactly as Keynes said. A government big enough and powerful enough to manipulate aggregate demand is big and powerful enough to violate people's civil liberties and attack their rights in every other way. Keynesian (or Hitlerian) policies unleash the sword of the state on the whole population. Central planning, even in its most petty variety, and freedom are incompatible.

Ever since 9-11 and the authoritarian, militarist response, the political left has warned that Bush is the new Hitler, while the right decries this kind of rhetoric as irresponsible hyperbole. The truth is that the left, in making these claims, is more correct than it knows. Hitler, like FDR, left his mark on Germany and the world by smashing the taboos against central planning and making big government a seemingly permanent feature of western economies.

Rockwell's connection to both Rothbard and Ron Paul:

Rockwell met Murray Rothbard for the first time in 1975, while working for Hillsdale. Rockwell credits Rothbard with convincing him to wholly reject statism:

"It was clear to me at the time that Murray Rothbard was Mises's successor, and I followed his writings carefully. I first met him 1975, and knew immediately that he was a kindred spirit.... I cannot remember the day that I finally came around to the position that the state is unnecessary and destructive by its nature – that it cannot improve on, and indeed only destroys, the social and economic system that grows out of property rights, exchange, and natural social authority – but I do know that it was Rothbard who finally convinced me to take this last step." [1]

[edit] Working for Ron Paul
Rockwell served as Ron Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982.[4][5] He has maintained a working relationship with Paul over the years, as a contributing editor to "The Ron Paul Investment Letter"[6]; as a consultant to Paul's 1988 Libertarian Party campaign for President of the United States[7]; and as vice-chair of the exploratory committee for Paul's spirited run for the 1992 Republican Party nomination for president.[8]

"If ever need makes humans see clearly it has made the German people do so. Under the compulsion of this need we have learned in the first place to take full account of the most essential capital of a nation, namely, its capacity to work. All thoughts of gold reserve and foreign exchange fade before the industry and efficiency of well-planned national productive resources. We can smile today at an age when economists were seriously of the opinion that the value of currency was determined by the reserves in gold and foreign exchange lying in the vaults of the national banks and, above all, was guaranteed by them. Instead of that we have learned to realize that the value of a currency lies in a nation's power of production, that an increasing volume of production sustains a currency, and could possibly raise its value, whereas a decreasing production must, sooner or later, lead to a compulsory devaluation. . . ."

Adolf Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, January 30, 1939



From Hitler's SPEECH OF FEBRUARY 24, 1941, Munich:

But there are things which must be left to Germany, because she must live. Others have no right to cut us off. It was monstrous for a nation that already possessed 15 million square miles to take another million square miles from another nation. It is intolerable for us to be the puppets of other nations and to have them prescribe for us, for example, what economic policy we are to pursue. We are carrying out the economic policy which is most advantageous to the German people. I am not persuading the others. If they want to sit on their money bags, let them do so. But when they say: "You do the same," I shall take care not to buy dead gold with the productive power of German workmen.

I purchase the necessities of life with the productive power of German workmen. The results of our economic policy speak for us, not for the gold standard people. For we, the poor have abolished unemployment because we no longer pay homage to this madness, because we regard our entire economic existence as a production problem and no longer as a capitalistic problem. We placed the whole organized strength of the nation, the discipline of the entire nation, behind our economic policy. We explained to the nation that it was madness to wage internal economic wars between the various classes, in which they all perish together.

Of course, a fundamental social principle was necessary to achieve this. It is today no longer possible to build up a state on a capitalistic basis. The peoples eventually begin to stir. The awakening of the peoples cannot be prevented by wars. On the contrary, war will only hasten it. Such states will be ruined by financial catastrophes which will destroy the foundations of their own former financial policy.

The gold standard will not emerge victorious from this war. Rather, the national economic systems will conquer. And these will carry on among themselves the trade that is necessary for them. Whether this does or does not suit a few gold-standard bankers in the world is quite immaterial. And if some of these gold bankers declare: "We cannot tolerate your trading with this or that country," it is none of their business. In future the peoples will decline to accept rules as to their trade policy laid down by a few bankers. They will follow the policy which is best adapted to their needs.

In this respect we can look to the future with confidence. Germany is an immense factor in world economy, not only as a producer but also as a consumer. We certainly have a great market for our goods. But we are not only seeking markets; we are also the greatest buyers. The Western world wants, on the one hand, to live upon its empires and, on the other hand, to export from its empires as well. That is impossible because in the long run the nations cannot carry on one-sided trade. They not only have to buy, but also have to sell. They can sell nothing to these empires. The peoples will therefore trade with us in the future, regardless of whether this happens to suit certain bankers or not. Therefore we will not establish our economic policy to suit the conceptions or desires of bankers in New York or London.

Germany's economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people. I am not the slave of a few international banking syndicates. I am under no obligation to any capitalist group. I sprang from the German people. My Movement, our Movement, is a German people's Movement, and it is only to this German people that we are obligated.

Our economic policy, I repeat, is determined solely by the interests of the German people. From this principle we shall never depart. If the rest of the world says: "War," I can only say: "Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel."

I am not one of those who sees such a war coming and starts whining about it. I have said and done all that I could; I have made proposal after proposal to Britain; likewise to France. These proposals were always ridiculed-rejected with scorn. However, when I saw that the other side intended to fight, I naturally did that which as a National Socialist of the early days, I did once before: I forged a powerful weapon of defense. And, just as of old, I proclaimed that we should be not merely strong enough to stand the blows of others but strong enough to deal blows in return. I built up the German armed forces as a military instrument of state policy, so that if war were inevitable, these forces could deliver crushing blows.

Only a few days ago, an American general declared before an investigating committee in the House of Representatives that in 1936 Churchill had personally assured him, "Germany is becoming too strong for us. She must be destroyed, and I will do everything in my power to bring about her destruction."

A little later than 1936, I publicly issued a warning against this man and his activities for the first time. When I noticed that a certain British clique, incited by the Jews-who are of course, the fellows who kindle the flames everywhere-was intentionally provoking war, I immediately made all preparations on my part to arm the nation. And you, my old Party comrades, know that when I speak it is not a mere matter of words, for I act accordingly. We worked like Titans. The armaments we have manufactured in the past few years are really the proudest achievement that the world has ever seen. If the rest of the world tells us: "We are doing likewise now," I can only reply: "By all means do so, for I have already done it. But above all, don't tell me any of your tales. I am an expert, a specialist in rearmament. I know exactly what can be made from steel and what can be made of aluminum. I know what achievements can be expected of men and what cannot be expected. Your tales do not impress me in the least. I enlisted the strength of the whole German nation in good time to assist in our arming and, if necessary, I shall enlist that of half Europe. I am prepared for all impending conflicts and consequently face them calmly." Let the others face them with equal calm.

http://www.hitler.org/speeches/02-24-41.html

http://www.humanitas-international.org/ ... 02-24.html

[sirbadman]

@Negen.

What is this the DBS-Rafeeq personality-cult fan club or an 'anti-zio think-tank' ?

DBS and Rafeeq have made a lot of good calls on the economic situation, including their calls on the crap to hit the fan in Sept 2008.

 This is info I was able to pass on to others and I also used it to make my own career decisions where I switched from contract-based work to fulltime work in time to avoid fallout from the worst months of the global financial crisis.

By listening to their shows I get an idea of what is around the corner. There aren't many other shows I can think of which can do this, or have a good track record in doing so.

If you have a problem with their popularity at TIU - then dont come back. Moaning about it isn't going to change our minds.

Ron Paul is a freemason. Even if he was good intentioned, I dont think he has many years in the tank so he isnt going to stop anything. RP is also a believer of the official 9/11 story - are you?

The jewish banksters would still own most of the gold in the world so they are already in front with a gold-based monetary system. Although it might not be as good for them as the rewards from their BIS cartel/fiat monopoly system.

Silver is a different story, and I think silver has actually been used more as money than gold has in the past.

There were lots of things behind Hitler's economic miracle, he made sure everyone was working that is for sure.

Hitler and the Nazis were funded by the jewish banking families but Hitler started up a separate bond system which was out of their control, which is part of the reason he was nominated by them as an antichrist -like Napolean who also messed with their plans.

Also, if you want people to fully read what you post then dont use hard-to-read colours like orange, drop all the friggin massive & lamo images you use all the time, and try and make your points more succinctly.

[Negentropic]

With regard to anti-international-banker economic policies:

CJB seems to think that the Jewish bankers knew exactly what Hitler intended to do as far back as 1924 and actually wanted Hitler to get off the gold standard.

http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-myth-that-hitler-was-bonapartist-who.html

The economic portion might be true but it is certainly not true that Hitler wanted war himself. It's one of the better and more thought-provoking articles CJB has written though:

On the Myth that Hitler Was a "Bonapartist" Who Turned on the Jewish Bankers After They Put Hitler in Power

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

http://www.jewishracism.com

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com

There is a persistent myth that Adolf Hitler turned against the Jewish bankers after he had used their money to get himself elected. The myth further holds that the Jews forced war upon Hitler, because Hitler suddenly decided to print his own debt free currency.

One of the original sources of this myth is a dubious, though nevertheless very interesting and insightful, work attributed to Dr. J. Landowsky. In this book, The Red Symphony, there is a purported transcript of an interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, a Jewish Bolshevik, who is asked to reveal his secrets in an attempt to save his life. Rakovsky (there was in fact such a person) claimed that Hitler was a "Bonapartist", who unwittingly accepted Jewish banker money (in contradiction to Rakovsky's alleged views, most today who hold to this myth claim that Hitler knowingly took Jewish money, but turned against the Jewish bankers who put him in power), and who brought on their wrath when he began to print his own money without the Jews' usurious debt slavery attached to it.

"Bonapartist" is a Marxist term, which refers to a military takeover of a Jewish revolution, a military regime that coopts the revolution and imparts reforms which win it popular support. Hitler did indeed coopt the Nazi Revolution and turn it into Capitalistic war machine and war enterprise, after he murdered Ernst Roehm, Gregor Strasser and other purer Socialists than Hitler, in 1934. Prior to this move, Hitler already began the process of subversion in 1932, when he appeased the Capitalists, undermined Gottfried Feder's power, and worked with the Capitalistic banker Hjalmar Schacht to raise funds among the Capitalistic industrialists for the NSDAP, by promising them war profits.

However, this is exactly what the Jewish bankers wanted and this shift to the right related to private property rights, not monetary policy, per se. The Jews funded various factions within the NSDAP, just as they fund all sides of the wars they start, and just as they fund all major US presidential candidates, but Hitler was their ideal man, because Hitler guaranteed the Jewish bankers, and their Capitalistic shabbas Goyim, war production, Jewish segregation, and a Second World War.

Rakovsky's story in this book fails to capture the truth when it falsely claims that Hitler surprised the Jewish bankers by taking over the production of money and loan capital. The purported transcript of the Rakovsky interrogation found in J. Landowsky, translated by George Knupffer, The Red Symphony, states, among other things, on page 24,


"Rakovsky--One is that which I had already mentioned. Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind. Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital. That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State. He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism; this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy... Here I give you two real facts for comparison. I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky; he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve. Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his 'gold reserve' was technical capacity and work ..., something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers.

G.--Thanks to increased re-armament.

Rakovsky--What does your re-armament give? If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peaceful production... Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky... For example the Commonwealth. If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions... The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulations of a scientific kind.[3] This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms or a formulated doctrine; yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula. This is very serious. Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism. We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine.[4] There is only one solution--war."


The myth placed in Rakovsky's mouth presumes that Hitler changed policies and that the Jewish bankers were unaware that Hitler intended to produce debt free currency and have the State provide investment capital without usury. These premises are false.

Hitler made his intentions quite clear in his book Mein Kampf, chapters 8 & 9, which was written and published many years before the Jewish bankers showered money on Hitler. In Mein Kampf, Hitler clearly states that he was attracted to the DAP (German Workers' Party), which became the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party), by Gottfried Feder. Feder clearly stated that the Germans should produce their own debt free currency and that the gold standard was a Jewish scam. Feder, like Strasser after him, distinguished the National Socialists from the Marxists on several grounds, including the importance of State control of loan capital, as opposed to the productive capital of Marxism, the abandonment of the pure materialism of Marxism in favor of race and nation, and the emphasis on nationalism as opposed to internationalism. The Jewish bankers could not have missed or misunderstood Hitler's intentions to produce his own currency, which were clearly enunciated at least as early as 1924. Hitler did not deviate from this stance, though he took on Schacht and appeased the German Capitalists by backing off his Socialist stance on private property as iterated in the 25 points of the NSDAP.

Hitler's monetary policies did not come as a surprise to the Jewish bankers, and they did not act against them. The Jewish bankers wanted Hitler to produce his own currency, because there was not enough gold or loan capital then in existence to finance the war machines of Germany, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Japan and the United States of America.

In order for the Jews to have their Second World War, they needed to end the crippling gold standard and teach World leaders how to produce their own currency. Gottfried Feder, who taught Hitler how to manufacture and distribute currency, was a product of Thule Gesellschaft, which was a training ground for Nazi ideologists that was created by crypto-Jewish Zionists. Feder railed against Capitalism as a Jewish conspiracy. Thule promoted German nationalism as a means of attracting members and promoting a healthy German society free of Jewish influence, which would concurrently promote Zionism and the expulsion of Jews to Palestine.

It was to be expected that the Jewish bankers would finance all factions of the Nazi Party, just as they finance all sides of the wars, and all the major political candidates in our presidential elections. But Hitler was their first choice and their ideal puppet. By killing off the SA and the more ardent Socialists, and obtaining the backing of the German industrialists, Hitler paved the way for the Jewish bankers' war plans and for their planned segregation and expulsion of the Jews.

This does not mean that Hitler's monetary policies were wrongheaded and cannot be used to destroy the power of the Jews. Quite the contrary, there are many things we can learn from the Nazis, both by their successful monetary and economic policies, and by their disastrous Jewish war policies. If Hitler had built up Germany, instead of building up a Jewish war machine, Germany would today lead the World.

[Ognir]

CJB seems to think that the Jewish bankers knew exactly what Hitler intended to do as far back as 1924

i can't say I disagree with the above statement