Posted by: graemebird | January 13, 2012

Guest Post From CORNFED: Is It All A Banking Problem?

Is it all a banking problem?
While various motivations have been attributed to evil Western regimes to explain the destruction of their own societies over the last 40 years, arguably it is all explicable in terms of trying to keep the fractional reserve banking system going for as long as possible.
As we know, under the current system, money is created out of thin air by banks as interest-bearing debt. Thus at any given time it is logically not possible for all debt to be paid off, since there will be more debt in existence than there is money to pay it. The only solution to keep the system going is for new debtors to keep borrowing more money into existence to pay existing loans. It follows that the economy as a whole must grow exponentially or collapse.
In the first 75 years of the twentieth century, real exponential growth was possible due to an abundance of cheap oil energy. In fact, energy consumption roughly doubled every decade. However, such massive increases in consumption in a finite world then became unsustainable, so real exponential economic growth became impossible. Hence artificial Ponzi-scheme type growth involving dragging non-economic activities into the economic system and bidding up the price of existing assets became necessary.
Hence feminism. Getting women to go to “work” and providing them with various welfare freebees enabled them to become debtors in their own right, thus artificially expanding the money supply. Because dual incomes became the norm it allowed the cost of housing, and hence mortgages to keep expanding, further increasing the money supply. It also dragged a lot of the services women had been providing informally – child care, care of the elderly, sex even – into the formal economy.
Hence mass immigration. Feminism results in declining birth rates. Although this has various benefits for predatory regimes, in the medium term it is antithetical to Ponzi-style economic growth. That is where immigrants come in. In real terms they are a drain on existing society, but in Ponzi terms, they represent a population largely unburdened with debt. The common thread of the populations most immigrants to the West are drawn from is not so much that they are intrinsically worthless low-IQ scum (Korean immigration is common for example) but rather that they are mostly debt-free and so can borrow more money into existence.
Also explained is the culture of financial bubbles and bankster looting. Since no actual growth in economic activity is possible the only thing to do is to bundle the newly-created cash and channel it into various sub-Ponzi schemes which initially seem to increase in value as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Since no actual value is created these schemes must inevitably fail in due course. This inevitability of failure explains the culture of corporate looting, whereby financial entities go bankrupt while the senior executives and associated banksters walk away filthy rich. If failure is inevitable there is nothing to be done but steal as much as possible before it happens.
Probably the current insanity serves various purposes, but for those who don’t like “conspiracy theories” it can all be explained in terms of economic necessity within the context of the fractional reserve system.
Advertisements

Responses

  1. CAPITALISM BETRAYED:

    England’s not the mythical land,
    Of Madame-George and roses
    It’s the-home-of police’
    Who kill black boys on mopeds

  2. YOU SURE ARE.

  3. I’ve just stumbled upon this fellow Damon Vrabel. He’s basically got the same take that I’ve developed, where Neoclassical Economists are concerned. It took me a long time to realise that this was how Neoclassical Economists were, this was their defining feature, whereas for a long time I was just thinking Jason, Sinclair and others were being unbelievable pricks, in choosing to be so flagrantly dishonest. But Vrabel, like me, thinks of Neoclassical economists as fundamentally being banking empire advocates. They are just bankers poodles. The insane Mark Hill not long ago agreed in error with the idiot-cunt Joseph Cambria, when Cambria claimed that bankers don’t create money. Jason went into the exact same poodle act with Andrew Reynolds, in total defiance of economic science. Neoclassical economists, without exception, are just banker stooges. This is a definitional thing. If they weren’t banker stooges, they would not be neoclassical. Every one of these guys is a house nigger.

  4. I’ll have to say that listening to this fellow is not merely a rehash, of what I’ve been trying to teach everyone. He’s got a far clearer explanation as to what is going on now. A far more civilian-friendly explanation. You see I spent decades concerning myself with how the economy was SUPPOSED to work. And in economics the ultimate exponents of economic science are those who have developed a British-Classical/Austrian SYNTHESIS. And clearly our greatest living exponent, and the fellow who has taken economic science much further than anyone else, is George Reisman.

    But as good as he is, George is mostly focused on how a properly regulated free economy would work. He’s not focused primarily, on the investigation of just how bad our current shit-hole is, and how it has morphed into a full-scale oligarchical sewer. You see we have a REAL ENEMY here. Authentic overlords. Its true we can only guess at their names. But since we have a real enemy, we cannot piously sit back and content ourselves with the knowledge that if we did things Georges way, we would all be happy, and in control of our lives (and we would). George is the ultimate exponent of economic science but things have gone beyond that now.

    I’m feeling a bit of a dope for not having sorted my didactic act as well as Damon is doing here. But I was a bit slow on the uptake, in that it took me to 2008, to know for a fact, that 911 was a false flag, and that the nexus behind it was largely a banking network.

    So if Damon realised this a few years earlier, I would have to say he had the jump on me.

    Listen to him. He is correct in every respect. George Reisman is the gold standard in economic science. But this is not what me and Damon are talking about in this story.

  5. Some sanity from CL on the Catallaxy site. CL amongst the barbarians.

    The issue is of one of our soldiers, or more likely a US soldier, pissing on someone he (or his colleagues) have killed. That is not an offence that deserves being executed over. It deserves 50 FUCKING LASHES AND THREE MONTHS IN A HOLE ON BREAD AND WATER.

    This behaviour is a fucking disgrace to the Western world. We have known always that a huge curse lies for the Christian man, for the Western Man, when he kills a man TWICE. This goes all the way back to Homer. We are better than that. The way of the world is war, and so we cannot avoid, in all cases, the killing of enemy soldiers. But the Christian world knew, that if we must kill that man, all his debts and wrong-doings are forgiven, and his memory is to be treated with respect, hopefully his family AT LEAST treated with respect, and perhaps even looked after.

    We know this from the Illiad. Achilles would have been fine to kill Hector. He was rightfully aggrieved. It was the natural thing to do, even though Patroclus had defied his agreement, which was conditional.

    “Achilles returned to battle and avenged his companion’s death by killing Hector. Achilles then desecrated Hector’s body by dragging it behind his chariot instead of allowing the Trojans to honorably dispose of it by burning it.”

    Achilles didn’t fuck up killing Hector. Achilles fatally and unforgivably erred, with what he did AFTER he had defeated Hector on the field of battle. Killing is a part of war, and moreso at that time, then presently. Because at least now we have the possibility of knocking out military targets then looking for renegotiation. So there was no avoiding killing. BUT A CHRISTIAN MAN, A WESTERN MAN, MUST NEVER STOOP TO KILLING A MAN TWICE. Killing him and dishonouring his dead body is out of the question, and that soldier needs to feel the lash and solitary confinement over it.

    If I was running things, I would understand that my first duty was to do everything to bring that soldier home in one piece to Momma. I couldn’t face it if I hadn’t made all the effort I could to do so, short of not mobilising the kid in the first place. But I would, if I was running things, have that kid humiliated, isolated, and lashed, and I would look his Momma in the eye and never lose my confidence that I was doing the right thing by her and everyone else.

    We are supposed to love our enemies, even as we wipe them out (if absolutely necessary.) If that soldier cannot cop THAT, he ought to have left the service a long time before, and been stripped of his clobber.

    There must never be any compromise on this principle. But here you go over to catallaxy, and there is CL, the last Roman, amongst a sea of barbarians.

  6. For fucksakes. Someone called Jupes is arguing that this pissing on a corpse is “no biggie” (my phrase not his). This is contempt for the enemy. In any sane setup this attitude can and OUGHT TO get your ass fired, even from a pencil-pushing job.

  7. These are children we are dealing with. This is killing we are talking about. We need to keep the power of killing under strict discipline. I’m frustrated because there is no way to explain something like this to someone who isn’t about to understand. A soldier is a weapon. Once you allow it that he’s okay being a loose cannon, you can no longer point him, and he can turn around on you and someone else. Stable societies, good or bad, kleptocracies, or otherwise, are only stable when the muscle end (of that maffia running-things) is on a tight leash. To have a soldier violating someone, who clearly is no longer a threat, violating him as an expression of his own “ID”…….. this is not acceptable and that soldier must taste the sting of the lash, and cry at nights after being weeks, if not months, all alone.

    Its akin to a civilian/military-target problem. Its the gear change that the good guys need to be able to make. Does the dead man threaten the soldier, or his buds? If the answer is “no” then the treatment is kindness and respectfulness. Simple as that. The dead soldier, looking through this lens, becomes an honorary civilian. If that LIVE-soldier cannot make that gear-change, in this situation, then maybe he might find it hard to change gears when amongst civilians. Maybe he and his buds will gang bang some swarthy women from the allied camp. Or perpetrate some other nastiness, because they cannot be bothered fighting off the war fever, when the threat is not imminent.

    This is no 20th order issue. This is BIGTIME. Only off-balance-sheet military-justice can deal with something like this.

  8. Thankfully Pedro has also come good on this matter. The first time I’ve been able to be happy about his typing in a very long time. But of course the primitive Cambria is making a TWAT of himself as usual.

    This is not cool Catallaxy. Don’t let the nihilistic undergraduates, who stop by from time to time, undermine this most important part of our culture. For without this, we are truly lost. Lost like last Christmas, in June.

  9. Jupes is a lunatic. Its pretty clear that HE needs to feel the lash, and cry at nights, after weeks of being in solitary. Fucking hell. I know its hard to have a comeback for a kid that is both pretty smart and utterly clueless. But I expect the responsible adults at Catallaxy to come down hard on this nihilistic lunatic. You cannot let him get away with this.

  10. Superior forces then us or our fighting lads, throw us together in combat, and we have to fight to protect our brothers-in-arms, ourselves, our girls, and our turf.

    But these conflicts, in the end are unnecessary. They are foisted upon us, by people who have more power than we have, or than any individual politician in our government could hope to strive for. So its a basic crime against decency, to disrespect anyone, that you have just rubbed out, on the basis that you needed to eliminate a real and imminent threat. He’s just another Palooka, caught up in a situation that he had no control over. And if he was a bad sort, or if he had the potential to be a good and productive fellow, and nice to his sisters, this is something our soldiers, in the heat of the killing frenzy, have no capacity to judge one way or the other.

    Our soldiers are not philosophers. Our soldiers need to know how to change gears once the threat to their brothers is manageable or gone. And they better fucking learn it if they don’t know this lesson now. Because if we lose their capacity to switch between killing machine, and respectful gentleman, THEN WE LOSE ALL THINGS. And there is no going back from that loss, save the remnants rising from total catastrophe.

  11. Good on you Graeme. You show decency…….. I’LL CUT YOU OFF RIGHT THERE BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE BEING MISLEADING. “MOST OF THE TIME” WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

    • I’m completely disappointed in Mark Levin on this matter. What has gotten into him? And actually I’m quite chuffed that ABU, Pedro, CL and some others have stood up for a serious warrior code, against the protestations of children. But its a hard argument to elucidate. Don’t these kids know how close we are to having these soldiers, riding around in trucks, running their own act?

      What do they imagine? That they are going to kill a whole bunch of goat-herder recruits, and violate their dead bodies, and that this will somehow assist in closing down those who pay for their equipment, and their wages?

  12. Any way you look at it, it is of course largely a Jew Problem.

    • You see you are blaming Jews, but I ask you? Who put them, and their goyim associates up to it? Its a fractional reserve, limited liability, crony-rich-slob problem. And if there are Jews that are part of this generalised enslavement attempt, then those individual big shots, are going to have to be taken down, just like their goyim big shot buddies. Your attempt to inoculate these ass-clowns has some ways to go as a form of ethical behaviour Ron.

      They may be the chosen people. But individuals within the chosen people camp, are capable of being involved in bad group activities. And they have to face the consequences just like the black man, or the Vulcan.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: