Labels

Friday, June 2, 2017

10 Things I Would Do If I Were Twenty-One - Brett and Kate McKay

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from The Business of Living by Frank Crane. It has been condensed from the original. Published in 1920, it’s a real gem. Enjoy the read.

The voyager entering a new country will listen with attention to the traveler who is just returning from its exploration; and the young warrior buckling on his armor may be benefitted by the experiences of the old warrior who is laying his armor off. I have climbed the Hill of Life, and am past the summit, I suppose, and perhaps it may help those just venturing the first incline to know what I think I would do if I had it to do over.
I have lived an average life. I have had the same kind of follies, fears, and fires my twenty-one-year-old reader has. I have failed often and bitterly. I have loved and hated, lost and won, done some good deeds and many bad ones. I have had some measure of success, and I have made about every kind of mistake there is to make. In other words, I have lived a full, active, human life. And have got thus far safely along.
I am on the shady side of fifty. As people grow old they accumulate two kinds of spiritual supplies: one, a pile of doubts, questionings, and mysteries; and the other, a much smaller pile of positive conclusions. There is great temptation to expatiate upon the former subjects, for negative and critical statements have a seductive appearance of depth and much more of a flavor of wisdom than clear and succinct declarations. But I will endeavor to resist this temptation, and will set down, as concisely as I can, some of the positive convictions I have gained.
For the sake of orderly thought, I will make Ten Points. They might of course just as well be six points or forty, but ten seems to be the number most easily remembered, since we have ten fingers, first and “handiest” of counters.
1. If I Were Twenty-One I Would “Do the Next Thing”
The first duty of a human being in this world is to take himself off other people’s backs. I would go to work at something for which my fellow-men would be willing to pay. I would not wait for an Ideal Job. The only ideal job I ever heard of was the one some other fellow had.
It is quite important to find the best thing to do. It is much more important to find something to do. If I were a young artist, I would paint soap advertisements, if that were all opportunity offered, until I got ahead enough to indulge in the painting of madonnas and landscapes. If I were a young musician, I would rather play in a street band than not at all. If I were a young writer, I would do hack work, if necessary, until I became able to write the Great American Novel.
I would go to work. Nothing in all this world I have found is so good as work.
2. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Adjust Myself
More people I have known have suffered because they did not know how to adjust themselves than for any other reason. And the happiest hearted people I have met have been those that have the knack of adapting themselves to whatever happens.
I would begin with my relatives. While I might easily conceive a better set of uncles, aunts, cousins, brothers, and so on, yet Destiny gave me precisely the relatives I need. I may not want them, but I need them. So of my friends and acquaintances and fellow workmen. Every man’s life is a plan of God. Fate brings to me the very souls out of the unknown that I ought to know. If I cannot get along with them, be happy and appreciated, I could not get along with another set of my own picking. A man who is looking for ideal human beings to make up his circle of acquaintances would as well go at once and jump into the river.
The God of Things as They Ought to Be is a humbug. There is but one God, and He is the God of Things as They Are.
Half of my problem is Me; the other half is Circumstances. My task is to bring results out of the combination of the two.
Life is not like a problem in arithmetic, to be solved by learning the rule; it is more like a puzzle of blocks, or wire rings—you just keep trying one way after another, until finally you succeed, maybe.
In the Game of Life, as in a game of cards, we have to play the cards dealt us; and the good player is not the one who always wins, but the one who plays a poor hand well.
3. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Take Care of My Body
The comfort and efficiency of my days depend fundamentally upon the condition of this physical machine I am housed in. I would look out for it as carefully as I attend to my automobile, so that it might perform its functions smoothly and with the minimum of trouble.
To this end I would note the four X’s. They are Examination, Excretion, Exercise, and Excess.
Examination: I would have my body thoroughly inspected by intelligent scientists once a year. I do not believe in thinking too much about one’s health, but I believe in finding out the facts, and particularly the weaknesses, of one’s mechanism, before one proceeds to forget it.
Excretion: By far the most important items to attend to in regard to the body is the waste pipes, including the colon, the bladder, and the pores. Most diseases have their origin in the colon. I would see to it that it was thoroughly cleaned every day. In addition I would drink plenty of water, and take some form of exercise every day that would induce perspiration. Most of my sicknesses have come from self-poisoning, and I would make it my main care to eliminate the waste.
Exercise: I would, if I were twenty-one, take up some daily system of exercise that would bring into play all the voluntary muscles of the body, and especially those which from my occupation tend to disuse. I would devote half an hour to an hour to this purpose.
Excess: I would take no stimulant of any kind whatsoever. Whatever whips the body up to excess destroys the efficiency of the organism. Hence, I would not touch alcoholic drinks in any form. If one never begins with alcohol, he can find much more physical pleasure and power without it.
I would drink no tea or coffee, as these are stimulants and not foods. Neither would I use tobacco. The healthy human body will furnish more of the joy of life, if it is not abused, than can be given by any of the artificial tonics which the ignorance and weakness of men have discovered.
If I were twenty-one, all this!
4. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Train My Mind
I would realize that my eventual success depends mostly upon the quality and power of my brain. Hence, I would train it, so as to get the best out of it.
Most of the failures I have seen, especially in professional life, have been due to mental laziness. I was a preacher for years, and found out that the greatest curse of the ministry was laziness. It is probably the same among lawyers and physicians. It certainly is so among actors and writers. Hence, I would let no day pass without its period of hard, keen mental exertion, so that my mind would be always as a steel spring, or like a well-oiled engine, ready, resilient, and powerful.
And in this connection I would recognize that repetition is better than effort. Mastery, perfection, the doing of difficult things with ease and precision, depend more upon doing things over and over than upon putting forth great effort.
I would especially purge myself as far as possible of intellectual dishonesty. By intellectual dishonesty I mean what is called expediency; that is, forming or adhering to an opinion, not because we are convinced of its truth, but because of the effect it will have. A mind should, at twenty-one, marry Truth, and “cleave only onto her, till death do them part, for better, for worse.”
5. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Be Happy
By this I imply that anyone can be happy if he will. Happiness does not depend on circumstances, but upon Me.
This is perhaps the greatest truth in the world, and the one most persistently disbelieved.
Happiness, said Carlyle, is as the value of a common fraction, which results from dividing the numerator by the denominator. The numerator, in life, is What We Have. The denominator is What We Think We Ought to Have. Mankind may be divided into two classes: Fools and Wise. The fools are eternally trying to get happiness by multiplying the Numerator; the wise divide the Denominator. They both come to the same—only one you can do and the other is impossible.
If you only have one thousand dollars and you think you ought to have two thousand dollars, the answer is one thousand divided by two thousand, which is one half. Go and get another thousand and you have two thousand divided by two thousand, which is one; you have doubled your contentment. But the trouble is that in human affairs as you multiply your numerator you unconsciously multiple your denominator at the same time and you get nowhere. By the time your supply reaches two thousand dollars your wants have risen to twenty-five hundred dollars.
How much easier simply to reduce your Notion of What You Ought to Have. Get your idea down to one thousand, which you can easily do if you know the art of self-mastery, and you have one thousand divided by one thousand which is one, and a much simpler and more sensible process than that of trying to get another one thousand dollars.
This is the most valuable secret of life. Nothing is of more worth to the youth than to awake to the truth that he can change his wants.
So, if I were twenty-one, I would make up my mind to be happy. You get about what is coming to you, in any event, in this world, and happiness and misery depend on how you take it; why not be happy?
6. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Get Married
I would not wait until I became able to support a wife. I would marry while poor, and marry a poor girl. I have seen all kinds of wives, and by far the greatest number of successful ones were those that married poor.
Any man of twenty-one has a better chance for happiness, moral stature, and earthly success, if married than if unmarried.
I married young, and poor as Job’s turkey. I have been in some hard places, seen poverty and trial, and I have had more than my fair share of success, but in not one instance, either of failure or triumph, would I have been better off single. My partner is this task of living has doubled every joy and halved every defeat.
Many young people today play the fool and marry the wrong person, but my observation has been that “there’s no fool like the old fool,” that the longer marriage is postponed the greater are the chances of mistakes, and that those couples are the most successful in matrimony who begin in youth and grow old together.
7. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Save Money
Money has a deal to do with contentment in this workaday world, and I’d have some of my own. There isn’t a human being but could save a little. Every man, in America at least, could live on nine-tenths of what he does live on, and save the other tenth. And the man who regularly saves no money is a fool, just a plain fool, whether he be an actor getting one thousand dollars a day or a ditch-digger getting one dollar a day.
8. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Study the Art of Pleasing
Much of the content from life is due to having pleasant people around you. Hence, I would form habits and cultivate manners that would please them.
For instance, I would make my personal appearance as attractive as possible. I would look clean, well-dressed and altogether as engaging as the material I had to work with would allow.
I would be punctual. To keep people waiting is simply insolent egotism.
I would, if my voice were unpleasant, have it cultivated until it became agreeable in tone. I would speak low. I would not mumble, but learn the art of clear, distinct speech.
I would learn the art of conversation, of small talk. I would equip myself to be able to entertain the grouchiest, most blasé people. For there is hardly a business in the world in which it is not a great advantage to be able to converse entertainingly.
The secret of being a good conversationalist is probably a genuine unselfish interest in others. That and practice. It consists more in making the other person talk than in talking yourself.
I would not argue. I never knew one person in my life that was convinced by argument. Discuss, yes; but not argue. The difference is this: in discussion you are searching for the truth, and in argument you want to prove that you are right. In discussion, therefore, you are anxious to know your neighbor’s views, and you listen to him. In argument, you don’t care anything about his opinions, you want him to hear yours, hence, while he’s talking you are simply thinking over what you are going to say as soon as you get a chance.
Altogether, I would try to make my personality pleasing, so that people would in turn endeavor to be pleasing to me.
9. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Determine, Even If I Could Never Be Anything Else in the World, That I Would Be a Thoroughbred
Thoroughbred, as it is currently used, is a word difficult to define, perhaps entirely non-definable. Yet we all know what it means.
It implies being a good sport, by which I mean the kind of man that does not whine when he fails, but gets up smiling and tackles it again, the kind of man whose fund of cheer and courage does not depend on success, but keeps brave and sweet even in failure.
Most people are quitters. They reach their limit. They are familiar with the last straw.
But the hundredth man is a thoroughbred. You cannot corner him. He will not give up. He cannot find “fail” in his lexicon. He never learned to whine.
10. If I Were Twenty-One, I Would Make Some Permanent, Amicable Arrangement With My Conscience
God, Duty, Death, and Moral Responsibility are huge facts to which no life can escape. They are the eternal sphinxes by the road of every man’s existence. He must frame some sort of an answer to them.
It may please the reader to know how I have answered them. It is very simple.
I am familiar, to some extent, with most of the religions, cults, and creeds of mankind. There are certain points common to every decent religion, for in every kind of church you are taught to be honest, pure-minded, unselfish, reverent, brave, loyal, and the like.
These elements of religion may be called the Great Common Divisor of all faiths.
This G. C. D. is my religion. It is what over fifty years of thought and experience has winnowed out for me. It is my religion. And I think I glimpse what Emerson meant when he wrote that “all good men are of one religion.”
And the matter can be reduced to yet plainer terms. There is but “one thing needful,” and there’s no use being “careful and troubled about many things.” That one thing is to do right.
To do Right and not Wrong will save any man’s soul, and if he believes any doctrine that implies doing wrong he is lost.
So, let a man of twenty-one resolve, and keep his purpose, that, no matter what comes, no matter how mixed his theology may be, no matter what may be the rewards of wrongdoing, or the perils and losses of rightdoing, he will do right.
And the corollary of this is that if I have done wrong, the best and only way to cure it is to quit doing wrong and begin doing right. If any man will stick to this, make it his anchor in times of storm, his pole-star in nights of uncertainty, he will cast out of his life that which is life’s greatest enemy—Fear. He need not fear man, nor woman, nor governments, nor mischief-makers, nor the devil, nor God. He will be able to say with the accent of sincerity that word of William Ernest Henley, to me the greatest spiritual declaration in any language:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Let me repeat that I have not been telling what I did with the implication that the youth of twenty-one would do well to follow me. I did not do all these things. Far from it! I wish I had. I only say that if I were twenty-one, as I now see life, I would do as I have here suggested. But perhaps I would not. I might go about barking my shins and burning my fingers, making idiotic experiments in the endeavor to prove that I was an exception to all the rules, and knew a little more than all the ancients. So let not the young man be discouraged if he has committed follies; for there seems to emerge a peculiar and vivid wisdom from error, from making an ass of one’s self, and all that, more useful to one’s own life than any wisdom he can get from sages or copybooks.
In what I have written I have not tried to indicate the art of “getting on,” or of acquiring riches of position. These usually are what is meant by success. But success is of two kinds, outward and inward, or apparent and real. Outward success may depend some upon what is in you, but it depends more upon luck. It is a gambling game. And it is hardly worth a strong man’s while. Inward and real success, on the contrary, is not an affair of chance at all, but is as certain as any natural law. Any human being that will observe the laws of life as carefully as successful businessmen observe the laws of business will come to that inward poise and triumph which is life’s happiest crown, as certainly as the stars move in their courses.
I would, therefore, if I were twenty-one, study the art of life. It is good to know arithmetic and geography and bookkeeping and all practical matters, but it is better to know how to live, how to spend your days that at the end of it you shall be content, how to spend your life so that you feel it has been worth while.


Mailvox: disproof vs positive claim - Vox Day

RS asked about tariffs and wages:
In your second presentation on Free Trade you said that Hazlitt was erroneous in claiming that tariffs would reduce wages in America and you pointed to the fact that wages have reduced since 1973 event though tariffs have largely been eliminated. In any event, I think that the reduction in wages for American workers since that time is due to the large scale importation of foreign workers which seems orthogonal to tariffs.
It is false to claim that tariffs reduce wages. While it is true that the two primary reasons for reduced American wages are a) twice as many women working than before and b) the importation of foreign workers, the fact is that reduction of tariffs has not increased wages. Perhaps more to the point, wages in China have risen from 445 CNY to 67569, most of this prior to the relaxation of tariff rates in 2010.

It is difficult to separate the various effects, but the point is that we do not see the inverse tariff/wage relationship upon which Hazlitt in part bases his case.

Meanwhile, DH found himself troubled by the thoughts my previous Darkstream raised:
Your recent dark-stream is quite thought provoking. I had difficulty putting my mind at rest enough to fall asleep until way past my usual bedtime. The points you made resonate with me as true, however the argument is left begging for more.

Your reaction to comments stood out as thought provoking as well. While I do not consider myself to be particularly bright on an absolute scale, I have no idea what my I.Q. is. I find it does not require a great deal of intelligence to be frustrated with and isolated from most of those around me.  I relate to your frustration, though I wish it didn't keep you from completing your thoughts.

Even if we could distill all the best aspects of every "ism" into one best of all "isms", it would not be accepted upon pain of death either by the elites or their devoted subjects.
The point that I am making is not that communism is good or desirable. It is merely that global free markets and individual sovereignty is incompatible with the survival of both nation and family. It is not an accident that so many globalists are childless individuals with unusual family situations; even the modestly successful expat communities tend to be mostly populated by rootless transients upon whom one can hardly expect to successfully build a society, let alone a civilization.

What passes for global society is intrinsically parasitical, if not downright predatory, and therefore cannot possibly serve as a sound foundation in itself. Globalism requires that cows first transform themselves into wolves, and then, after that impossibility is successfully accomplished, learn to eat grass.

Alt-Retard economics - Vox Day

Having seen and heard a few economically illiterate morons pop up and advocate NATIONAL SOCIALISM as some sort of answer to globalism and free trade, I decided that I would take the five minutes required to demonstrate that national socialism is A) not a coherent economic theory or program, B) not a viable economic system, and C) structurally doomed to fail even faster than the current US system is today.

A) National socialism is not a coherent economic theory.

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."
- Adolf Hitler

B) National socialism is not a viable economic practice.

USA 6-year budget deficit to revenue, 2010-2016
26.8 percent

National Socialist Germany 6-year budget deficit to revenue, 1933-1939
62.9 percent

C) National Socialism was structurally doomed to fail even faster than the current US system is today.

Both the current US system and the historical Nazi systems were dependent upon credit booms. But the Nazi debt-spending was 135 percent worse than the USA's insanely profligate ways. The ad hoc National Socialist economics meant that the Nazis either had to surrender to the bankers on whom they had declared metaphorical war or engage in material imperialist war to acquire the resources to pay off their rapidly growing debts.

Anyone who advocates national socialism as an economic solution is either totally ignorant or literally retarded. It is even less credible than libertarianism, free trade, or globalism. Frankly, to call it "retarded" is probably a little too generous.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

The U.S. Is on Collision Course with Iran (and Russia), but Nobody’s Talking About It - By Darius Shahtahmasebi

While celebrities are vehemently criticizing Donald Trump’s recent lack of manners on his first foreign policy trip as president, the mainstream media and our beloved celebrities appear to be completely oblivious of the warpath the Trump administration is taking America down. This time, that warpath is set against another Russian ally: Iran.
As Foreign Policy aptly asked last week, “Are the U.S. and Iran on a collision course in Syria?” The answer to this question appears to be far worse than the media is letting on.
As Anti-Media has previously explained, Iranian-aligned troops who were operating under the banner of the Syrian Arab Army have been advancing toward a U.S. training base in Syria. These troops have subsequently been struck by the U.S.-led coalition. The proposed aim of these Syrian-Iranian-aligned troops is to open up the al-Tanf border crossing to be positioned under the control of the Syrian government in order to open up direct routes to Iraq and Iran (for supplies, reinforcements and the like.) Not to mention, as one U.S. defense official told Foreign Policy, the Syrian government maintains a military outpost in Deir Ezzor, another strategic area where Syrian forces are battling one of the last major remnants of ISIS.
This outpost is isolated, making complete control of the area is almost meaningless without the opening of the al-Tanf region, as Foreign Policy explains:
“The base has long been cut off from other areas of regime control and can only be resupplied by airdrops, but it was recently reinforced by about 1,000 Syrian soldiers, giving the regime in Damascus some fighting power in the area.”
The reclaiming of this territory by the Syrian army and its associated forces is a deal-breaker for Washington. Last Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters that if the Iranian-backed militia continues its advances, the coalition will continue to defend itself, as reported by Foreign PolicyForeign Policy also reported that the U.S.-led coalition is tracking their movements carefully in their advance towards Deir Ezzor.
If the U.S.-led coalition is, indeed, tracking these troops movements towards Deir Ezzor, the U.S. should be well aware of the photographs produced by regional outlet al-Masdar, which show that the Russian air force is currently deploying air power to cover these advances. The Telegraph, too, confirmed that Russian jets provide air cover for these Iranian-backed militias.
Donald Trump’s childish instinctual decision to push another official out of his way to get to the front of a photo-op is surely worthy of our criticism, yet one has to wonder why this behavior outrages celebrities and commentators who are hardly bothered by the thousands of Iraqis and Syrians who are dying needlessly at the behest of the same man’s foreign policy strategy.
And what should we make of the thousands more who will be unnecessarily pummeled into rubble by Donald Trump’s decision to put America on a direct warpath with Iran and Russia?
The media wants you to believe Donald Trump is compromised by Russia when in actuality, his administration is closer to transforming the Cold War 2.0 into World War 3 than any other administration before him. Meanwhile, in tandem with the mass media, Trump’s administration has been sowing the seeds for a new conflict with Iran, which may involve over 55 countries that have just signed a military pact with the express intention of confronting Iran in Iraq and Syria.
Whatever one’s thoughts on Iran, Russia, and Syria, any human rights organization should be able to vouch for the fact that the United States’ military strategy cannot be a realistic solution to the problems currently engulfing the Middle East region. It will only bring more death and destruction and ignite a ticking time-bomb in the process. And that is something we all need to be talking.


This Super Bubble Is About to Pop - By Nick Giambruno

France’s new president can’t keep the European Union together.
In early May, France elected globalist darling Emmanuel Macron. His victory gave the EU a short-term boost. However, it did not change the fundamental problems with Europe’s artificial mega-state.
Doug Casey agrees…
Doug Casey: The EU was built upon a foundation of sand, doomed to failure from the very start. The idea was ill-fated because the Swedes and the Sicilians are as different from each other as the Poles and the Irish. There are linguistic, religious, and cultural differences, and big differences in the standard of living.
Artificial political constructs never last. The EU is great for the “elites” in Brussels; not so much for the average citizen.
Meanwhile, there’s a centrifugal force even within these European countries. In Spain, the Basques and the Catalans want to split off, and in the UK, the Scots want to make the United Kingdom quite a bit less united.
You’ve got to remember that before Garibaldi, Italy was scores of little dukedoms and principalities that all spoke their own variations of the Italian language. And the same was true in what’s now Germany before Bismarck in 1871.
The chances are better in the future that the remaining countries in Europe are going to fall apart as opposed to being compressed together artificially.
I think it’s unlikely the Europe of tomorrow will look anything like the picture below.
A Fool’s Vision of Europe’s Future
Europe is far more likely to splinter and eventually resemble the map below. It shows what Europe would look like if all its current separatist movements were to succeed.
Europe—If All Its Current Separatist Movements Succeed
Right now, Italy is Europe’s weakest link.
Italy has one of the most indebted governments in the world. It’s borrowed over $2.4 trillion. Its debt-to-GDP ratio is north of 130%. (For comparison, the US debt-to-GDP ratio is 104%.)
But the situation is actually much worse.
GDP measures a country’s economic output. However, it’s highly misleading. Mainstream economists count government spending as a positive when calculating GDP. A more honest approach would count it as a big negative.
In Italy, government spending accounts for a whopping 50%-plus of GDP. Remove that from the calculation, and I suspect we’d see how hopelessly insolvent the Italian government truly is.
In other words, Italy is flat broke.
I don’t see how the Italian government could possibly extract enough in taxes from the productive part of the economy to ever pay back what it’s borrowed.
Meanwhile, Italian government bonds are in a super bubble…
They’re currently trading near record-low yields. (When bond prices go up, bond yields do down.)
Over $1 trillion worth of Italian bonds actually have negative yields.
It’s a bizarre and perverse situation.
Lending money to the bankrupt Italian government carries huge risks. So the yields on Italian government bonds should be near record highs, not record lows.
Negative yields could not exist in a free market. They’re only possible in the current “Alice in Wonderland” economy created by central bankers.
You see, the European Central Bank (ECB) has been printing money to buy Italian government bonds hand over fist. Since 2008, the ECB and Italian banks have bought over 88% of Italian government debt, according to a recent study.
This is stunning.
It means that Italy’s financial system depends completely on ECB money printing.
Italian government bonds are, without a doubt, in super-bubble territory. It won’t be long before a pin pricks this bubble and… pop.
That could happen soon.
Earlier this month, the credit rating agency Fitch downgraded Italy’s credit rating from BBB+ to BBB.
And Mario Draghi, the head of the ECB, recently announced that after five years of manic money printing, he’s finally achieved his wrongheaded goal of 2% inflation.
Doug Casey: Inflation is one of the most misused words; few even think about its actual meaning. What is inflation? “Well, that’s prices going up.” No, it’s not. To say that is to confuse cause and effect. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. You inflate when the money supply is increased by more than real wealth increases.
Prices go up as a result. People have forgotten about that. Today, inflation seems to come from out of nowhere, like a freak storm. No cause. Unless it’s blamed on the butcher, or the baker, or an evil oil company. Nobody ever thinks it’s a central bank—the Fed in the US—that actually creates more money, and causes inflation.
You’ve heard that central banks are trying to create a little bit of inflation because, they say, “A little bit of inflation is good.” No, even a little bit of inflation is deadly poisonous. For two reasons: It creates the business cycle. And it destroys the value of savings. Saving is the basis of capital creation.
People who say that a little inflation is a good thing are dangerous fools.
Now that the ECB has reached its 2% inflation target, Germany and other EU countries are pushing the central bank to stop printing so much money.
This is the last thing the Italian government wants. Remember, the ECB buys a lot of Italian government bonds with those freshly printed euros.
If the ECB stops buying Italian government bonds, who will step up? The answer is nobody… Italian banks are already completely saturated with government bonds.
Germany wants the money printing to stop. Italy wants it to continue.
But, since the ECB has reached its stated inflation target and Germany has crucial elections later this year, I think Germany will get its way.
This is very bad news for Italy’s government and banking system.
Once the ECB—the only large buyer—steps away, Italian government bonds will crash and rates will soar.
Soon it will be impossible for the Italian government to finance itself.
Italian banks—which are already insolvent—will be decimated. They hold an estimated €235 billion worth of Italian government bonds. So the coming bond crash will pummel their balance sheets.
It’s shaping up to be a lovely train wreck.
I think we’ll see a full-blown crisis in Europe soon.
So, why should Americans or anyone outside of Europe care?
It’s simple…
The EU is the world’s largest economy.
The euro currency is the second most widely held currency in the world.
Financial chaos in Europe means financial chaos worldwide.
The Financial Times commented on what would happen if the EU were to collapse:
It would probably lead to the most violent economic shock in history, dwarfing the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008 and the 1929 Wall Street crash.
A crisis in Europe would send a lethal lightning rod through the world’s currency and stock markets. Unparalleled economic turmoil—far worse than 2008—could follow.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/nick-giambruno/super-bubble-pop/

EVIDENCE BACKS CLAIM PRO-BERNIE SETH RICH WAS DNC LEAKER - Jerome Corsi

Wikileaks emails an inside job to get back at Hillary, evidence suggests
This article is Part 3 in a series of three articles investigating the Seth Rich murder.
Part 1 developed the following: Hillary’s campaign, lax on cybersecurity and working with the DNC to make sure Sanders did not have a chance of winning invited multiple attacks from both hackers on the outside and from leakers on the inside.
This Part 3 makes the case that Seth Rich was the likely source of both the WikiLeaks DNC emails published starting on July 22, 2016, and of the “Podesta File” of emails that WikiLeaks began publishing on Oct. 7, 2016.
The breakthrough in this series of articles is the attempt to apply intelligence analytical techniques to sort out the various known cybersecurity attacks on the Democrats during the 2016 presidential campaign to determine the rogue agent responsible for each separate known cybersecurity attack.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The purpose of this third and last article in the three-part series is to determine if Seth Rich is a likely suspect for having leaked to WikiLeaks the DNC emails that WikiLeaks emails published starting on July 22, 2016, and of the “Podesta File” of emails that WikiLeaks began publishing on Oct. 7, 2016.
The first hurdle is to determine if Seth Rich had a motive to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.  The precipitating incident establishing Seth Rich’s motive demands an investigation of the December 2015 incident in which four IT specialists in Sanders’ campaign were proven to have breached the DNC voter database to transfer Clinton campaign proprietary voter data to their Sanders’ campaign computers.
Seth Rich: Motive
On Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2015, NGP VAN, the software system operated by the DNC that provided donor data (NGP based in Washington) and voter data (VAN based in Somerville, Massachusetts) released a software modification that contained a bug that dropped a firewall, opening a window of approximately 40 minutes, during which IT specialists in Bernie Sanders’ campaign were allowed to view and copy voter data proprietary from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
A DNC email released by WikiLeaks made clear Amy Dacey, Communications Director for the Clinton Campaign, had concluded the data breach was serious.
“As a result of this analysis, NGP VAN found that campaign staff on the Sanders campaign, including the campaign’s national data director, had accessed proprietary information about which voters were being targeted by the Clinton campaign – and in so doing violated their agreements with the DNC,” Dacey found.
“These staffers [in the Sanders campaign] then saved this information in their personal folders on the system, and over the course of the next day, we learned that at least one staffer appeared to have generated reports and exported them from the system,” Dacey charged.
The New York Times in reporting on the data breach quoted an unnamed Clinton staffer who compared the data breach to “the opposing general getting your battle plans,” in that the DNC through the VAN system provides all Democratic presidential campaigns with Democratic voters’ names, phone numbers, and addresses, along with managing proprietary data each Democratic campaign maintains in the VAN system protected by firewalls from view by competing Democratic campaigns.
On Dec. 18, 2015, a Twitter user “Iowa Starting Line” posted the log-book data from NPG VAN documenting by name four Sanders campaign staffers, including Sanders’ National Data Director Josh Uretsky, who accessed various Clinton campaign data files that were saved by the Sanders campaign staffers into their own computers, appearing to steal the data from the Clinton campaign.
The log book entries show the files the Sanders campaign took from Clinton’s proprietary VAN voter data was potentially useful tactical information, with lifted files identified, for instance, “Turnout 60+” from folder “Ranged Targets,” and “Turnout 40-60” and “Not Sanders,” both also from folder “Ranged Targets.”
The log book entries showed four Sanders IT specialists spent two hours in the data without notifying NPG VAN of the firewall being down, calling up information from about a dozen states, downloading data that included a “turnout” variable showing on a scale of 1 to 100 how likely a person is to vote, with the goal of establishing a high “Priority” score to someone the campaign should make an effort to contact and persuade.
David Atkins, a campaign consultant and county official in the California Democratic Party, told Politfact.com the information would give the Sanders campaign a view of how the Clinton campaign was targeting voters, as well as a view of polling data indicating how well Clinton was doing in various states.
When the breach became known, a huge controversy developed in which the DNC cut off Sanders from DNC proprietary data in the NPG VAN system, forcing Sanders to sue the DNC.
The matter was resolved acrimoniously but quickly, in a midnight settlement on Friday, Dec. 18, 2015, that allowed Sanders to regain access to VAN, both for the shared DNC historical Democratic voters.
On Dec. 18, 2015, as the settlement was being reached, Sanders fired Uretsky, who maintains even today his intervention into the Clinton campaign proprietary database was aimed only at doing his job, being diligent to document the seriousness of the breach, so NPG VAN could make sure they never again installed a patch that compromised a firewall.
Because of this incident, there is evidence to suggest Seth Rich, a Bernie supporter, felt Amy Dacey, his boss on the voter mobilization campaign, used the incident to embarrass the Sanders campaign.
Bernie supporters HATED Hillary during the 2016 campaign:
Infowars.com has established by interviews with various DNC and Sanders campaign staff that Seth Rich felt Dacey, a staunch Clinton loyalist and spirited Sanders critic, had overreacted, blaming Uretsky for purloined data instead of accepting responsibility that a glitch in a NGP VAN patch had opened a firewall that allowed the Sanders campaign to view the proprietary Clinton voter database.
In the DNC organizational chart, Seth Rich reported to Technology Director Andrew Brown, the person Sanders identified as having recommended he hire Uretsky as the national data director for the Sanders campaign.
In the aftermath of the incident, Sanders went so far as to charge the breach of the Clinton voter data may have been a “false flag” attack staged by the DNC and carried off by a “plant,” namely Uretsky, who Sanders hired on the recommendation of Andrew Brown, the DNC’s National Data Director, and Bryan Whitaker, the former COO of NGP VAN.
“I mean here we are being attacked for the behavior of an individual [Uretsky], which we ultimately fired,” Sanders said.  “We agree he acted improperly, but it’s just amazing to me that this … individual that actually caused this trouble in our campaign was recommended by these guys. It’s not as if we conjured this guy Josh from thin air.”
Sanders insisted his campaign had not hacked the DNC’s NGP VAN system, but had taken advantage of a computer glitch, yet the result was the Sanders campaign was being attacked by both the DNC and by NGP VAN.
But as the incident resolved, Sanders loyalists seethed that NGP VAN provided the Clinton campaign audit of the data breach that the Clinton team made sure was released to the media, while the Sanders’ team was kept in the dark.
“It’s easy to speculate how Seth Rich could have become disgruntled after witnessing the DNC attempt to sabotage the Sanders campaign. As such, it’s not a stretch to imagine that Rich – a guy with access to sensitive emails and technical skills, did in fact communicate with WikiLeaks in order to expose and root out the DNC’s misdeeds,” a poster identified as “ZeroPointNow” posted on the ZeroHedge.com blog on May 19, 2017.
July 22, 2016: WikiLeaks starts publishing DNC emails
Starting on Friday, July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks began releasing over 2 publications 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from seven key figures in the DNC, none of whom included then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
By far, the largest number of emails came from DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda (10,520 emails), who had approximately three-times the emails released for the next highest on the list, National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3,799 emails) and Finance Chief of Staff Scott Corner (3,095 emails).
The emails covered the period from January 2015 until May 2016, with the last email dated May 25, 2016.
The emails have in common that one or more of the “From,” “To,” and or “CC” listings indicate the email was sent by or to an addressee using the DNC email server, identified as @dnc.org.
While the DNC email server could have been hacked, what is equally plausible is that someone on the inside (perhaps an employee with their own @dnc.org email address) could have discerned the usernames (possibly identical with the person’s email address) and the password for each of the seven DNC officials included in the WikiLeaks release.
If obtaining the DNC emails was an “inside job,” downloading the emails would have been as simple as accessing each official’s email account and downloading all emails listed there.
Unless each DNC official made sure emails on the DNC email server were erased (not simply that the emails were erased as viewed within a downloading computer), the leaker could have downloaded conceivably every email that user had written and/or received from the first email in the system.
If the email theft was a leak (as opposed to a hack from the outside), the DNC officials exposed may have been less attentive to cybersecurity in their choice and use of usernames and passwords, as well as less well trained on the hazards of failing to delete emails on the server.
The New York Times, reporting on Friday, July 22, 2016, commented the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks showed top officials at the DNC “criticized and mocked Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont during the primary campaign, even though the organization publicly insisted it was neutral in the race.”
The New York Times noted that in an email dated May 21, Mark Paustenbach, a committee communications official, “wrote to a colleague about the possibility of urging reporters to write that Mr. Sanders’s campaign was ‘a mess’ after a glitch on the committee’s servers gave it access to Clinton voter data.”
“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Mr. Paustenbach wrote to Luis Miranda, the communications director for the committee.
The WikiLeaks emails, released the Friday before the Monday, July 25, 2016, start of the Democratic National Convention had the immediate impact of forcing DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign under fire on Sunday, July 24 – a move that threw the national nominating convention into disarray.
Recall that in June 2016, the DNC had acknowledged its computer network had been breached, a conclusion that led the DNC to hire cybersecurity expert CrowdStrike that investigated and reported the Russian government had had used two separate hacker groups, identified as “Cozy Bear” and “Fancy Bear,” to hack the DNC computer.
As reported in the second article on this series, the CrowdStrike report appears to have been the basis the DNC and U.S. intelligence used to conclude incorrectly that Guccifer 2.0 was responsible for providing the DNC emails WikiLeaks started making public on July 22, 2016, despite the fact there is no evidence Guccifer 2.0 ever hacked into any Democratic email server.
Recall, Guccifer 2.0 only ever published hacked internal documents from the DNC and the DCCC, as well as donor data apparently hacked from the NGP database.
Still, on July 22, 2016, DNC officials in interviews with the Washington Post blamed the WikiLeaks publication of DNC emails on Guccifer 2.0, citing the CrowdStrike investigation as proof.
Oct. 7, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing Podesta emails
WikiLeaks began publishing the Podesta emails on Oct. 7, 2016, less than one hour after the Washington Post published the lewd Access Hollywood video with Trump making lewd comments to Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush.
WikiLeaks continued publishing a total of 57,153 Podesta emails in a series of drops, with the final “Part 34” published on Nov. 7, 2016, three days after Election Day.
The last date of a Podesta email published by WikiLeaks was March 21, 2016, approximately two months earlier than the last date of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July.
Of the 57,153 Podesta emails, 48,862 contain “Podesta@” making it clear the key breach producing the emails WikiLeaks began releasing Oct. 7, 2016, was one John Podesta’s email @gmail.com – the email Podesta appeared to use almost exclusively, shunning the use of a Clinton campaign email address.
That Podesta was lax about cybersecurity is obvious from emails in the cache indicating Podesta lost his cell phone in a taxicab, fell victim to a phishing attack, and shared with an assistant his Apple ID and password.
Given that Podesta used john.podesta@gmail.com as his Apple ID (username) and “Runner4567” as his password, it is likely Podesta (given his apparent disregard for Internet security) may have used this username and password for all, or most, of the Internet websites to which he subscribed, as well as using the password for other transactions, maybe even including credit card or ATM transactions.
Again, an insider familiar with Podesta’s use of his @gmail.com account for virtually all his campaign email correspondence would only need to know (or guess at) his password to gain access to all undeleted Podesta emails that remained on the gmail.com email server, possibly back to the very first Podesta sent or received.St
When WikiLeaks began publishing the Podesta emails in October 2016, the Democrats reacted once again to claim the Russians had used Guccifer 2.0 to hack Podesta’s emails.
“We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton,” Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin told the press on Oct. 7, 2016.
“Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign,” Caplin continued.
That the last date of the Podesta emails precedes the last date of the DNC emails released by WikiLeaks suggests an internal operative seeking to leak emails damaging to Hillary may have accessed Podesta’s @gmail.com account first.
That the last date of the DNC emails was May 25, 2016, suggests events may have influenced the internal operative that the emails should be released right then.
What happened in May 2016?
The Democratic Party Indiana Primary took place on May 3, 2016.
Sanders achieved a 5 point victory upset over Clinton in Indiana, winning 52.46 percent to 47.54 percent, but the “superdelegates” swung to Clinton, giving Clinton a total of 46 delegates from the Indiana primary, compared to 44 to Sanders.
What in May was clear was that the Democrats had stacked the deck for a DNC-preferred candidate to win the nomination, with the clear majority of the 712 superdelegates (about 15 percent of all delegates) would vote for Clinton, such that Sanders could earn a majority of the 1,670 delegates up for grabs in popular voting during the primaries, and still lose the nomination.
By June 7, 2016, in the early hours of counting the ballots in the Democratic Party California primary, the Associated Press declared that Hillary Clinton had won enough delegates and superdelegates to win the Democratic Party nomination for president.
The likely scenario is that a leaker internal to the Democratic Party released to WikiLeaks both the DNC emails and the Podesta emails at one time in late May or early June 2016.
The final determination of how to sort out the emails and when to publish them remained a decision WikiLeaks would reserve exclusively to itself.
Even President Obama in his final news conference appeared to concede the DNC emails were leaked to WikiLeaks, not the result of a hacking attack from the outside.
“The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked,” President Obama said.
“I don’t pay a lot of attention to Mr. Assange’s tweets, so that wasn’t a consideration in this instance,” he continued. “And I’d refer you to the Justice Department for any criminal investigations, indictments, extradition issues that may come up with him.”
The strongest evidence Seth Rich leaked the WikiLeaks emails
The strongest indication that Seth Rich leaked the DNC and Podesta emails to WikiLeaks comes from Julian Assange himself.
In an interview broadcast on Dutch television on Aug. 9, 2016, the host Eelco van Rosenthal asked Assange, “The stuff that your sitting on, is an October Surprise in there?”
Assange insisted, “WikiLeaks never sits on material,” even though Assange had previously said WikiLeaks yet ha more material related to the Hillary Clinton campaign that had yet to be published.
Then, on his own initiative, without being specifically asked, Assange began talking about Seth Rich.
“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very significant risks,” Assange volunteered.
“There’s a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons, as he was walking down the streets in Washington,” Assange continued.
Van Rosenthal objected that the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich was a robbery.
“No, there’s no findings,” Assange answered.
“What are you suggesting?” Van Rosenthal interjected.
“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks – and they become concerned to see things occurring like that,” Assange responded.
There was no reason for Assange to have spontaneously brought up Seth Rich in the context of the risks his leakers take if Rich were not the leaker involved in the DNC and Podesta emails that WikiLeaks published.
On Aug. 9, 2016, WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward “for information leading to the conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.”
Again, why would WikiLeaks do this if Seth Rich were not the leaker in question?
Repeatedly, Assange has denied that the Russians “or any state party” supplied WikiLeaks with the DNC and/or Podesta emails.
The attempt to distinguish is disingenuous, suggesting the Russians may have been responsible for the hack, turning the information to a third party, not the Russians or a state actor, who handed WikiLeaks the emails and thus became “the source.”
Speaking plainly, Assange – a political operative with an established reputation of telling the truth – has denied the Russians or any state actor was involved, knowing he was leaving the clear impression the DNC and Podesta emails traced back to a leaker internal to the DNC – the same conclusion President Obama suggested in his final press conference.
Why the cover-up in the Seth Rich murder investigation?
The next most convincing reason to believe Seth Rich is the leaker revolves around the way the Washington Police Department and the Democratic Party have perpetrated a cover-up of key evidence of his murder investigation.
About all the Washington Police Department have released with certainty is that Sean Rich was shot to death in the Bloomingdale section of Washington, D.C., in the early hours of Sunday, July 10, 2016.
To date, the Washington Police have refused to release any investigative report or autopsy that precisely described the wound.
Despite intensive research efforts by Internet sleuths, we do not know for certain which hospital in D.C. the Washington Police took Rich for treatment after the shooting.
Was there any identification of the shooting suspects, or results from a subsequent police investigation?
There appears to be some 2 ½ hours unaccounted time between 1:15 a.m. when Rich left a local bar and 4:25 a.m. when he was shot near his home, even considering the time Rich would have required to walk home.
Sorting through the thin evidence is unlikely to produce a conclusive break-through in the case, as long as the Washington Police Department withhold all investigative reports and the Democratic National Party continue to dismiss the Seth Rich murder as a “conspiracy theory,” so as to deflect any threat to their determination to advance the “Russian collusion” meme that itself lacks evidence.
These articles have argued a tighter, forensic case, premised on examining the content and context of each known cyberattack against the Clinton campaign so as to determine the most likely means required to pull the cyberattack off successfully and, from there, to determine the most likely perpetrator.
The conclusion of these three articles is that the DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign were stolen and leaked by an operative within the Democratic Party, with the likely perpetrator of the leak being Seth Rich.



Alt-Right is inevitable - Vox Day

A cuckservative finally realizes that moral posturing is no substitute for fighting back:
If you're in a fight with someone, and you never do anything but parry blows and dodge, you can at least hope for him to tire himself out.

But he'll have regained his endurance by the next morning. And, as he actually enjoys just throwing blows at you, and you've done nothing to convince him this is a counterproductive idea -- he will be back.

If you never actually hit him right the fuck back -- when is he ever going to learn that fighting is not a good idea?

Many of us -- and I blame myself here -- have been pushing an idea of unilateral disarmament in this arena, hoping they would just learn how awful and venomous they are.

But they don't. I think they take a rather different lesson from our passive resistance than the one they intended.

We intended that by passively resisting, they would see us as showing moral courage and would learn from us that ceaseless violence and bullying and collectivized political campaigns run against everyday citizens pursuing no public office are wrong.

But they didn't learn that.

What our self-restraint has taught them is quite the opposite--when we refuse to fight back, they take that as signalling that deep down, we know they're right and that we are the monsters, and thus, our refusal to engage them in the fight they've started does not prove our moral rightness, but instead our moral corruption.
These people would have saved themselves a lot of time and frustration by simply reading SJWAL. And it's going to take them more time, and more SJW lunacy, before they actually start fighting. Even in this post, Ace feels the need to virtue-signal about how he doesn't want to fight, and he laments discovering that it is necessary to do so.

He shouldn't. The Alt-Right enjoys the conflict. We love it when they hand us yet another excuse for a reprisal. We are the happiest of warriors and we like nothing better than to see our enemies in full, panicked flight before us.

The Alt-Right is inevitable because everyone who doesn't join it will have submitted to the social justice Left. And not every cuck and con and libertarian and liberal is willing to do that. We're not going to convince them. The SJWs are, because they're certainly not going to stop on their own.