Friday, September 28, 2018

Neon Revolt on the Kavanaugh #Clown World

But you would think that the statistical likelihood of three separate women all simultaneously emerging from the woodwork to accuse Kavanaugh of profane and depraved criminal acts would normally beggar belief, but this is #ClownWorld we’re talking about. If you’re not marching for Sharia law arm-in-arm with Linda Sarsour in #ClownWorld, if you’re not incessantly lamenting your #WhitePrivilege like it’s some kind of unbreakable ancestral curse instead of the cultural inheritance it actually is; if you’re not storming restaurants with you dreadlocked, patchouli-stanked, genderconfused BLM rejects to shout down Ted Cruz and his wife as they enjoy a meal together, all to fulfill your deluded “revolutionary” ambitions and “win” one for the “#Resistance,” then I’ve got news for you: you’re on the “wrong side of history,” bud. Or so the screeching mouthpieces of the radical left would like you to think.

Did you really think character assassination was below them?
The problem isn’t ever how low they can go. Understand this: they will always use whatever weapons they have at their disposal. The problem is: how much will the American people tolerate before it becomes a blatant bridge-too-far? Before all Americans of every stripe start recoiling in incredulity?

Friday, September 21, 2018

Traveling note from Crush - Sept.21,2018

Tomorrow morning Ma and I will begin the third and last leg of our summer journey visiting our families - we're going home - so expect few, if any, new posts in our library in the next 12-15 days.. But remember, this is a library - not a news site - - I hate to repeat myself.:)

Our government makes us play with Monopoly money - by Gary DeMar

The game of Monopoly debuted in 1935 during a time of financial recovery after a steep economic downturn called the Depression from which we’ve never really recovered since government intervention created the Depression and every economic downturn since.
A similar game was developed by Elizabeth (Lizzie) J. Magie Phillips in 1903. The Landlord’s Game, as it was called, was self-published in 1906. “Although The Landlord’s Game was patented, it was not taken up by a manufacturer until 1910, when it was put into production in the U.S. by the Economic Game Company of New York. There were other board games based on the buying and selling of land leading up to the ever-popular Monopoly.
There’s good historical evidence that Monopoly is based on The Landlord’s Game for the simple fact that Parker Brothers bought the patent rights for $500 in 1935 and there is an early old board game that some say bears a striking resemblance to Monopoly.
Monopoly money is not real money, but it could be if our government said it was and controlled its production.
Boom and bust economic cycles are made worse by government interference. Left alone, the markets most often smooth themselves out with fewer extreme highs and lows.
After the economic debacle of 2008, the government once again tried to fix the mess it created and as a result extended the economic recession.
The early developers of these games had hoped people would learn basic economic principles from them. Some people have. They’re called politicians and banksters. Here’s one of the rules from Monopoly:
Besides the Bank’s money, the Bank holds the Title Deeds, and the houses and hotels prior to purchase by the players. The Bank pays salaries and bonuses. It sells and auctions properties and hands out the proper Title Deed cards when purchased by a player, it also sells houses and hotels to the players and loans money when required on mortgages.
The Bank collects all taxes, fines, loans and interest, and the price of all properties which it sells and auctions. The Bank ‘never goes broke.’ If the Bank runs out of money, the Banker may issue as much as needed by writing on any ordinary paper.
Don’t ever say that politicians don’t learn anything. They’ve learned their lessons well even if we haven’t. United States currency is different from Monopoly money in one way: Our government prints it, values it, and forces us to use it as currency at an ever-decreasing value while calling the result “prosperity.” In reality, it’s theft by dilution.
The Bible considers inflation, an increase of the money supply via fiat currency, to be a violation of the law: “Your silver has become dross, your drink diluted with water” (Isa. 11:22). Clipping coins, adding a base metal to silver and gold, and printing money out of thin are no different from reaching into people’s bank accounts and stealing the assets.
The Bible requires “just weights and measures”:
“You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin; I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:36).
What would happen to a company that was adding water to its wine or sawdust to its cement mix? They would be prosecuted for fraud.
And yet our government does not see a problem diluting the value of our money by a process called “quantitative easing.” Our economy is being propped up by fake money that in time will be worth as much as Monopoly money.
There was a time when our coinage was silver and gold, and government-created certificates were used that could be redeemed for the physical metal. Today’s coins are made from base metals that have limited value when compared to the trading prices of silver and gold.
The difference between Monopoly money and the United States currency is that we know Monopoly money is worthless. If we continue down the road of fiat money creation, it will be as worthless as Monopoly money.
Christian legal theorists have understood the process of assessing biblical laws and determining how to make contemporary application. For example, Swiss Reformer Pierre Viret (1511–1571) “felt that all laws affecting public morals and related to spiritual values should be drawn directly from the moral law of God. However, he believed that these absolute and eternal laws of God had to be geared to the times in which people lived and the national temperament of the country to which the laws were to be applied.”1
Viret’s use of the Eighth Commandment—“You shall not steal” (Ex. 20)—and its application to the civil sphere is instructive. He applies it to “those who clip coins2  and . . . those who consciously use false money and particularly of those responsible for the public treasury.”3  Modern-day monetary theory and practices are clear violations of the Eighth Commandment. Removing the silver from our nation’s coins in 1963, printing money with nothing to back it other than the government mandating its worth, and deficit spending are just three examples.
Israel was judged by the way it failed to keep God’s commandments. This included economic laws that adversely affected widows and orphans and the general population: “Your silver has become dross, your drink diluted with water. Your rulers are rebels and companions of thieves; everyone loves a bribe and chases after rewards. They do not defend the orphan, nor does the widow’s plea come before them” (Isa. 1:22–23).
This indictment is based on laws set forth in the Mosaic legislation, in particular, Deuteronomy 25:13–16. These verses may not say anything in particular about debasing precious metals and passing them off as unadulterated and diluting wine and advertising and selling it as the real thing, but the application to monetary policy and consumer issues is clearly evident in the way it is applied in Isaiah (also see Lev. 19:35–37; Prov. 11:1; 20:23; Ezek. 45:10; Mic. 6:11).
1.     Robert D. Linder, The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret (Geneva, Switzerland: Droz, 1964), 29, note.(↩)
2.     Originally, gold coins had smooth edges, and it wasn’t noticeable if just a little gold was clipped from the edges using a sharp knife or a file. If this was done to several coins, the coin clipper would have enough raw gold to exchange for an additional small denomination coin while still holding onto his original larger denomination coins. The same could be done with silver. In time, the perimeter of coins were milled to have reeded (grooved) edges. The dollar, half-dollar, quarter, and dime were originally produced with about 90 percent silver. If you got a smooth-edged coin, you knew it had been clipped. Today, no one bothers with clipping circulated, government-issued coins since they are no longer made of gold and silver. You will notice that the penny and nickel do not have reeded edges since their value is minor compared to silver and gold.(↩)
3.     Quoted in Jean-Marc Berthoud, Pierre Viret: A Forgotten Giant of the Reformation—The Apologetics, Ethics, and Economics of the Bible (Tallahassee, FL: Zurich Publishing, 20010), 40.(↩)

Embracing Reality - by Robert Ringer

As the lying, corruption, and craziness continue unabated in Washington, it’s a reminder of just how important it is to one’s sanity to embrace reality.  Reality is synonymous with truth, but, as Baltasar Gracian, the insightful and pragmatic 17thcentury Jesuit priest, cautioned, “Truth is abhorred by the masses.”

Instead of loving truth, most people try to make true that which they love, which is a self-delusive practice that virtually guarantees frustration and failure.  Thus, most people live in an unreal world, a world they create in their own minds based on the way they would like it to be rather than the way it actually is.  They seem to have adopted the philosophy of Ashleigh Brilliant, who once remarked, “I have abandoned my search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy.”

It is absolutely essential that a person intellectually and emotionally recognizes that reality isn’t the way he wishes things to be or the way they appear to be, but the way they actually are.  The individual who is not able to make this distinction finds it virtually impossible to make decisions that lead to positive results.     

Which brings me to principles.  A principle is synonymous with a law of nature, as opposed to a law of man.  Most manmade laws are nothing more than legalized aggression against the sovereignty of peaceful individuals and rarely bear any relationship to Natural Law, reality, or morality.

A true principle of nature cannot be created or altered in any way.  Consider the principle of gravity.  Isaac Newton didn’t wake up one morning and decide to create a principle whereby if he dropped an apple from a tree twenty times, it would fall to the ground nineteen times and rise upward the twentieth time.

Instead, through experimentation, he found that if you drop an apple from a tree twenty times, it will fall to the ground twenty times.  What he did was discover the principle, or law, of gravity.  A principle, then, is the essence of reality.

To try to create our own reality is both futile and destructive.  You certainly have the right to go on believing whatever you want to believe, but reality doesn’t care about your wants or beliefs.  Reality will deliver negative consequences to the well-meaning, ignorant individual as surely as it will to the most malevolent, stubborn person.  Not once has reality excused anyone for good motives, so consistency is essential when it comes to an accurate perception of reality.

In physics, we learn that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The longer I live, however, the more convinced I am that in the daily process of living (as opposed to the science of physics), reactions tend to be far greater than the actions that provoke them.

In other words, whenever we make a decision or take an action that we know, in our heart of hearts, is wrong, the punishment seems to be way out of proportion to the “crime.”  My experience has been that I almost always end up paying for an irresponsible action multiple times, with each payment seeming to take the form of a balloon note carrying onerous, compounded interest.

The consequence may take a long time, and it may be indirect or subtle in nature, but there is always a consequence.  Symbolically speaking, everything you do goes into your book of life.  This doesn’t necessarily hold a religious connotation, but I do firmly believe that universal forces are at work that pull us inexorably toward the deserving results of our actions.  Kindness begets kindness; cruelty begets cruelty.

Where many people allow themselves to be misled is that the payback for their actions is not always immediate, which results in their failing to make the connection when it finally arrives.  And even when the consequence is immediate, they may miss the subtlety of the connection between the result and the action that caused it.

Though most people know, deep down inside, that all actions have consequences, I am convinced that very few of them give it more than a passing thought as they go about their daily affairs.  The question is, why would people ignore such an all-powerful, immutable principle?  

I believe it’s because man inhabits a world of delusions, which obscures reality and creates dangers for himself and others.  He rarely understands what he is doing or why he is doing it.  His actions and beliefs indicate that he lives in a state of waking dreams.

I further believe that one of the most important steps in a person’s personal growth is to become adept at transcending his world of delusions.  This is not an easy task, due in no small part to the fact that we are surrounded by delusions each and every day.

The nice thing about it, however, is that you can overcome these delusions, provided you are committed to truth.  This means being willing to subordinate your desires and wishes — your dreams, as it were — to reality.

This is not to say that you should not have dreams.  On the contrary, dreams can be healthy for the psyche.  What it does mean, however, is that you should not allow your dreams and desires to override reality.  Put simply, your love of truth must be greater than your desire to make your dreams come true.

The more often, and more quickly, you are able to recognize truth in your daily life, the more likely it is that you will become part of that small minority of the human race that lives in the real world rather than inhabiting a state of waking dreams.

The challenge is to learn to correctly perceive reality, because when you accurately and consistently perceive reality, delusions begin to disappear.  And as delusions vanish from your life, you are able to deal with problems on a more rational basis, which in turn leads to success in all areas of your life.

The Constitution of Unlimited Federal Authority - By Gary D. Barnett

“Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Once again I have been reminded that September 17th was Constitution Day, the federal observance of the ratification of that power giving political document. How unwarranted to honor this piece of parchment that was used to vastly increase federal power. In fact, it was prepared in complete secrecy behind locked doors, with armed guards for security during the process. Given that the members of the constitutional convention were drafting what is now referred to as the “law of the land,” a completely new governing system, the total secrecy and reasons given for that secrecy have never proved valid in my opinion. In addition, the claim that this document protected liberty, while at the same time politicians plotted in secret to overthrow the current system for one of their choosing, one that created a much more powerful central federal system, is a contradiction impossible to ignore.
It is no secret that I do not worship the Constitution as so many seem to do. Most hold it sacred, and a few hold it in contempt. I am in the latter camp. When I take a pragmatic approach in analyzing this loose set of rules constructed by a small group of politicians, I find holes that are difficult if not impossible to repair. This leads me to understand that there is more to this document than meets the eye. In other words, it is not something to be sanctified; it deserves much scrutiny. This is the opposite approach from the norm, but one that allows open investigation of those who drafted it and their true motives, instead of shrouding them under a protective halo.
No Treason: The Consti...Lysander SpoonerBest Price: $7.46Buy New $1.53(as of 02:10 EDT - Details)

Can anyone even imagine today a few politicians on their own and in secret, Democrats or Republicans, or any combination of the two, overhauling the government, creating a new set of rules replacing the current government, and drafting those rules by secret ballot?
“If only we could get back to the Constitution.” I have heard this phrase uttered an untold number of times, but what does it mean? It means nothing to me, for it is not a worthwhile argument or for that matter, any argument at all. It places reverence on a political document, and any thinking person should be able to understand that if the protection of individual rights is due to a constitution drafted by politicians, then he has no rights at all.
Politicians, legal scholars, professors, academics, and any number of others are fond of claiming that the U.S. Constitution severely limits government, and protects the individual from tyranny. They claim that all federal powers are explicitly limited due to the written restrictions contained in that “founding” document. This is simply not true.  Where are these so-called restrictions? There are none as far as I see in Article 1, Section 8, and this is the one article that outlines all the powers of Congress. In part, it authorizes the power to tax, to provide for the common defense, to provide for general welfare, to borrow money at will, to regulate all commerce, to coin (control) money, among many other powers. In addition, the final power authorized in the powers clauses allows government to make any laws necessary for carrying out these powers. Reading this section of the Constitution, regardless of the rest of this document, and believing that government power is restricted is an exercise in futility. The government certainly has never viewed its power as restricted, and for good reason.
There are those who choose to defend the Constitution by isolating the different powers mentioned, especially by using what the Founders said in non-binding papers, private letters, and after its drafting to support their argument. This is usually a defense based upon the “intent” of the signers. This is not only an empty argument, but is an impossible claim. Pretending to understand the intent of a politician in the 18th century is ludicrous when considering how written law should be interpreted. Even if particular individuals responsible for drafting the Constitution spoke out later to clarify what they actually meant, how is this useful given that the document had already been implemented and made law with only the original language evident?
One example worth mentioning is the continual argument about the general welfare clause. This was mentioned twice in the body of the Constitution. The first was in the preamble, which is irrelevant, due to the fact that no power was given, and could not be given in that section of the Constitution. But it was mentioned again in the powers given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. There, explicit power was given for Congress to provide for the general welfare. Because nothing specific is outlined concerning this power, no restriction is evident. That is why Congress from the very beginning, due to this non-specific language, abused its power concerning the general welfare clause.
Yes, Madison and others claimed that the general welfare provision in the Constitution was never meant to be an unlimited power for spending or for any number of other abuses by Congress. Do his words mean anything given that the language granting those powers was never changed? Why were all the powers given in Article 1 of the Constitution so broad in nature in the first place if they were intended to be restrictive? Open-ended language granting power to government is never able to restrict, it is only an allowance for abuse. Whether accidental or by design, it has been a nightmare, and if the original language was unclear, why has it never been amended?
The Know Your Bill of ...Sean PatrickBest Price: $19.47Buy New $11.69(as of 05:25 EDT - Details)

Due to the language used in Article 1, Section 8, it is much more evident that this spending can be justified more easily than it cannot. Words mean things, and the words in the Constitution, especially in the powers clauses, are not meant to restrict, but to allow for unlimited interpretation. The drafters of the Constitution were some of the most brilliant minds of the time, but those defending the Constitution and its framers must assume they were idiots. Why would they allow such loose language, language that obviously would be misconstrued and abused? If they wanted to put into law clear restrictions on government, why would they be so careless by not being specific in their demands? Why would they leave open to doubt the powers of government if liberty is what they sought?
If freedom and liberty are to be evident in this society, government must be held down. No constitution can save us, nor can it provide liberty for the individual. No constitution written by politicians should be revered. It should instead be shunned. The enemy of freedom is government, and if any government is to exist, it should have only one mission and only enough power to protect that singular mission. That is to protect the natural rights of the individual, nothing more.  Consider these words of wisdom by Ludwig von Mises:
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”
No truer words have ever been spoken. The only way to have government by the people is to have little or no government at all.
Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional living and writing in Lewistown, Montana. Visit his website.

Previous article by Gary D. Barnett: Lies Cannot Hide the Dark Side of Reality

Has Russia Given Up on the West? - By Patrick J. Buchanan

By the end of his second term, President Ronald Reagan, who had called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” was strolling through Red Square with Russians slapping him on the back.
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive.
And how have we husbanded the fruits of our Cold War triumph?
This month, China’s leader-for-life Xi Jinping stood beside Vladimir Putin as 3,000 Chinese troops maneuvered with 300,000 Russians, 1,000 planes and 900 tanks in Moscow’s largest military exercise in 40 years.
An uncoded message to the West from the East.
Richard Nixon’s great achievement in bringing Peking in from the cold, and Reagan’s great achievement of ending the Cold War, are history.
Bolshevism may be dead, but Russian nationalism, awakened by NATO’s quick march to Russia’s ancient frontiers, is alive and well.
Russia appears to have given up on the West and accepted that its hopes for better times with President Donald Trump are not to be.
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is berating Russia for secretly trading with North Korea in violation of U.N. sanctions, saying, “Lying, cheating, and rogue behavior have become the new norm of the Russian culture.”
Cold wars don’t get much colder than defaming another country’s culture as morally debased.
Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….
The U.S. has also signaled that it may start supplying naval and anti-aircraft weaponry to Ukraine, as Russia is being warned to cease its inspections of ships passing from the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov.
The three-mile-wide strait lies between Crimea and Kerch Peninsula. In Russia’s eyes, both banks of the strait are Russian national territory.
With U.S. backing, Ukraine has decided to build a naval base on the Sea of Azov to “create conditions for rebuffing the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation in this region.”
Kiev has several patrol boats in the Sea of Azov, with a few more to be transferred there in coming months. Russia’s navy could sink those boats and wipe out that base in minutes.
Are we going to send our Navy across the Black Sea to protect Ukraine’s naval rights inside a sea that has been as historically Russian as the Chesapeake Bay is historically American?
Poland this week invited the U.S. to establish a major base on its soil, for which Poland would pay two billion dollars, to be called “Fort Trump.”
Trump seemed to like the idea, and the name.
Yet, the Bush II decision to install a missile defense system in Poland brought a Kremlin counter-move: the installation of nuclear-capable Iskander cruise missiles in Kaliningrad, the former German territory on Poland’s northern border annexed by Stalin at the end of World War II.
In the Balkans, over Russian protests, the U.S. is moving to bring Macedonia into NATO. But before Macedonia can join, half its voters have to come out on Sept. 30 to approve a change in the nation’s name to North Macedonia. This is to mollify Greece, which claims the birthplace of Alexander the Great as it own.
Where are we going with all this?
With U.S. warships making regular visits into the Eastern Baltic and Black Sea, the possibility of a new base in Poland, and growing lethal aid to Ukraine to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass and the Russian navy on the Sea of Azov, are we not crowding the Russians a bit?
Are we confident the Russians will always back down?
When Georgia, believing it could kick Russian peacekeepers out and re-annex its seceded province of South Ossetia, attacked in August 2008, the Russian Army came crashing in and ran the Georgians out in 48 hours.
George W. Bush wisely decided not to issue an ultimatum or send troops. He ignored the hawks in his own party who had helped goad him into the great debacle of his presidency: Iraq.
So, what exactly is the U.S. grand strategy with regard to Russia?
What might be called the McCain wing of the Republican Party has sought to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would make the containment of Russia America’s policy in perpetuity.
Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy? What are the prospects of Russia yielding always to U.S. demands? And are we not today stretched awfully thin?
Our share of the global economy is much shrunken from Reagan’s time. Our deficit is approaching $1 trillion. Our debt is surging toward 100 percent of GDP. Entitlements are consuming our national wealth.
We are committed to containing the two other greatest powers, Russia and China. We are tied down militarily in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, with the War Party beating the drums for another and larger war — with Iran. And we are sanctioning adversaries and allies for not following our leadership of the West and the world.
In looking at America’s global commitments, greatly expanded since our Cold War victory, one word come to mind: unsustainable.
Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Of Two Minds - We're All Speculators Now

When the herd thunders off the cliff, most participants are trapped in the stampede..
One of the most perverse consequences of the central banks "saving the world" (i.e. saving banks and the super-wealthy) is the destruction of low-risk investments: we're all speculators now, whether we know it or acknowledge it.
The problem is very few of us have the expertise and experience to be successful speculators, i.e. successfully manage treacherously high-risk markets. Here's the choice facing money managers of pension funds and individuals alike: either invest in a safe low-risk asset such as Treasury bonds and lose money every year, as the yield doesn't even match inflation, or accept the extraordinarily high risks of boom-bust bubble assets such as junk bonds, stocks, real estate, etc.
The core middle-class asset is the family home. Back in the pre-financialization era (pre-1982), buying a house and paying down the mortgage to build home equity was the equivalent of a savings account, with the added bonus of the potential for modest appreciation if you happened to buy in a desirable region.
In the late 1990s, the stable, boring market for mortgages was fully financialized and globalized, turning a relatively safe investment and debt market into a speculative commodity. We all know the results: with the explosion of easy access to unlimited credit via HELOCs (home equity lines of credit), liar loans (no-document mortgages), re-financing, etc., the hot credit-money pouring into housing inflated a stupendous bubble that subsequently popped, as all credit-asset bubbles eventually do, with devastating consequences for everyone who reckoned their success in a rising market was a permanent feature of the era and / or evidence of their financial genius.
Highly volatile speculative bubbles are notoriously humbling, even for experienced traders. Buy low and sell high sound easy, but when the herd is running and animal spirits are euphoric, only the most disciplined speculators and the lucky few who have to sell exit near the top of the bubble.
The "safety" of investments in housing, commercial real estate, stocks, corporate bonds, emerging markets, etc., is illusory: these are now inherently risky markets, and it's difficult to hedge these risks. (Not many participants knpw how to hedge housing, commercial real estate, etc.)
In an environment in which participants have been richly rewarded for believing that "the Fed has our backs," i.e. central banks will never let risk-assets drop because they understand pension funds, insurers, banks, etc. will implode if the risk-asset bubbles pop, few see the need to bother with hedges, as hedges cost money and reduce yields.
As a result, few participants are fully hedged. Most participants are buck-naked in terms of exposure to risk, and once the tide goes out we'll find out how few are hedged against bubbles popping.
Financial markets are not linear by nature, so predictably rising markets are atypical. Financial markets are intrinsically non-linear, meaning that the dynamics are inter-connected and prone to asymmetric events in which a small input triggers an outsized output such as a crash.
In the fantasy world conjured by central bank stimulus, markets never go down and economies never slide into recession. Financial engineering has eradicated risk. But the dynamics interact in ways that can't be controlled. As inflation heats up globally, central banks are being forced to "normalize" interest rates and yields, and political pressure to stop saving banks and the super-wealthy is mounting.
All speculative markets deflate, slowly or suddenly, depending on the marginal buyers and sellers. The shakier the marginal participants, the greater the likelihood that the speculative bubble will pop with a suddenness that surprises the vast majority of participants.
Take a look at stock valuations as a percentage of GDP, i.e. the real economy: stocks are clearly in a bubble.
The national Case-Shiller housing price index: bubble.
The Seattle Case-Shiller housing price index: super-bubble.
The Dallas Case-Shiller housing price index: super-duper-bubble.
You get the point: virtually every supposedly low-risk asset class is actually a super-risky, super-dangerous bubble. Speculation drives valuations far beyond financial rationality because we're herd animals and unearned gains supercharge our greed, especially when we see all sorts of undeserving people making fortunes for doing nothing but running with the herd.
So when the herd thunders off the cliff, most participants are trapped in the stampede. Very few exited far from the cliff, and even fewer will wait patiently for the dust to settle before moving cash into assets.
Risk has a knack for hiding in plain sight. Few people look for it, and even fewer recognize it. Only a handful act on it.

My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free in PDF format.
My new book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition.
Read the first section for free in PDF format.

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via

Vox Popoli: UN backs Soros

The UN and the EU are desperately trying to get nationalist Hungary to back down and accept foreign invasion before more countries are inspired to defend themselves against the globalist evil:
Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has accused the UN human rights watchdog of “spreading lies” about his country, saying that immigration was not a “fundamental human right.”
The official took aim at the “independent experts” with the UN Human Rights Council, stating they “should not be independent from the truth.”

“Recently, unfortunately, some UN officials started to spread lies against and about my country,” Szijjarto told the UN body’s meeting on Wednesday.

Such officials would like to “force on us impossible things,” namely allowing illegal migrants into the country, Szijjarto stated. “They say that migration is a fundamental human right, which is a lie,” he stressed.

The harsh statement of the foreign minister came as a response to criticism against Hungarian anti-immigration policies. Last week, the UN rights body blasted the so-called ‘Stop Soros’ law, adopted by the country’s government back in July. The UN paper said Hungary “attacks against civil society, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers” with the law, adding that it’s against the international human rights law and poses a threat to the “values” of the whole European Union.

It added that it targets the critical “civil society” and fuels “hostility, xenophobia and … discrimination against migrants, asylum seekers, refugees and all those trying to provide them support.”

The ‘Stop Soros’ law has imposed restrictions on foreign NGOs, which work with migrants, obliging them to seek licenses from the government. It also criminalized aiding migrants, namely “providing financial or property benefit” to them or simply informing them about the asylum-seeking procedures. Those who do so could now face 12 months in jail.

Hungary is nationalist because Hungary understands the long-term costs of being invaded much better than most nations do. The Hungarian leadership is doing what the Right far too often fails to do, which is go on the offensive against its enemies. If all you do is play defense, you will lose. It's guaranteed. Every party of the Right, from Myanmar to the USA, would be well advised to start aggressively pushing for laws banning the principles, funding, activities, and organizations of the Left.

So-called "freedom of speech" was always a trap. As others have noted, they simply define your speech as violence even as they define their violence as speech.