- Six Dangerous Leftist Concepts
Authored by ReturnOfKings.com via The Burning Platform,
The left is intrinsically conflict-mongering. It always existed against a particular state of thing, whether real or fantasized. Early on, though, it dissimulated its conflictive essence by posing as positive or “progressive.” To this end, generations of leftists twisted language to give themselves a good appearance whereas the enemy-of-the-day looked to everyone like something really bad.
Eighteenth century libertines claimed to defend “freedom” while faith became “fanaticism” and “superstition.” Later ones came across as “intellectuals” or siding with “the people.” Some manipulated the proclivity to empathy to pretend they were “oppressed” and thus entitled to sympathy when they were actually hateful, anti-middle-class Marxist or deviant family-hating lesbians.
The whole theory of “progress” as one can find it in Marx—society ought to go from capitalism to an ideal communist society—is little more than wishful thinking, yet it worked tremendously for leftists eager to cast themselves into a self-favoring view of history. Marxist “progress” has been used to kill millions of innocent people, just like globalist or cultural Marxist “progress” serves to destroy white homelands. As long as people are entrapped into positive words masquerading and fostering grim realities, Leftism retains its grip over their minds.
Here are some pseudo-positive concepts or buzzwords that are actual ploys for sinister projects.
1. Equality
Perhaps the most massive totem pole of it all. Written, shouted, used as a talisman an indefinite number of times, “equality” has been put forth to justify various mass killings from eighteenth century terror to twentieth century Bolshevism, and closer to us served to unleash female hypergamy and alien millions of young straight-white-males from the societies they should belong in.
Equality exists in mathematics. A number can be equal to another because an abstract unit can be replaced with another abstract unit without change. Mathematical equality exists because abstract units are identical with each other. Outside from the realm of pure quantity, qualitative differences emerge, and thus equality ought to be defined negatively as the absence of difference both in quantity and quality.
It is easy to see that equality between individual beings—not numbers—is a fiction, an attempt to perceive individuals as abstractions or numbers, void of any quality, personality or specificity. Equalitarianism stems from a rather incomplete view of the beings it pretends to apply to, and gets quickly used as a mask for envy or the will to grab something or exert power over someone.
Although equality can enter into the definition of true justice as equanimity—see Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, quote—, more than often, the word is used to foster particular interests at the expense of the wider social equilibrium, to fan the flames of division and sedition, and later, to deny vocations, human biodiversity, complementarity as it implies differences in nature and functions, not to mention ugly tradeoffs where some manipulative group plays the victim or claims rights to what doesn’t belong to them.
2. “Social” “justice”
Are you a victim? Are you victim of a particular inequality? Then you are living an injustice, and this wrong ought to be compensated. This simple framing has been widely used by anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western leftists to create a feeling of victimhood among various social categories. They used this powerful feeling to mount new social identities, inspired from Marxist classes—feminism isn’t about femininity but about women identifying as a separate, adversarial group, whose interests would be antagonistic to men’s—, and perpetual charges hung over the majority’s heads—reyciss! Sexiss! And so on.
“Social justice” covers a blending of several features: an accusatory, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western narrative, that taints and darkens past history; a feeling of victimhood and class identity for so-called “minorities” integrated into the wider narrative; the systematic, and very real, disenfranchisement and displacement of the majority that finds itself condemned to play the role of the bad guy—and hence charged—in said narrative. In this sense, “social justice” is deeply divisive, defamatory, aggressive, and amounts to a Moloch that eats families, nationhood, and most men.
Actual justice, call it social or not, is of course far from such a terrible conception. Methinks true justice should acknowledge the fact that we are the sons of the Western civilizations, its human substance and legitimate heirs, and that we have a prime right over it. We should have jobs, freedom of speech, protection over violent crowds, a right to fair judgment instead of getting screwed over by HR, “minority” impunity and pussy pass, a right to chances to thick relationships with at least some women instead of clowning our ways through hypergamy… Don’t forget we need to formalize at least some of our intuitions about what’s fair or not to replace the wicked theory of “justice” the Left shatters us with.
3. “Progress” (and the “reactionaries”)
This overrated buzzword has been straightforward long ago. Its Latin root, progressus, stems from the root verb gradior (walk, advance) and was mostly used in a military context, as in the sentence “the army is progressing into enemy territory.” Since then, it has been used analogically to qualify any advancement, even purely relative or fantasised ones.
The Left, following pompous Philosophes and Marx, enshrined its own notion of progress into a general theory of history, thus making it absolute rather than relative. When various strands of modernity clash—for example, individual freedom and collective well-being—, which one is “progressive”? Each can be used to fulfill a particular notion of progress. Aside perhaps from blatant technological breakthroughs, “progress” is deeply relative. Even the most shining realizations of genius imply the sacrifice of thousands of potential choices that have been discarded during the process. The Left chose to forget this truth in order to judge everything and everyone from its own authoritarian, pedestalized perspective.
If you do some research about such characters as, say, Ayn Rand and Lothrop Stoddard, you’ll notice they have been widely labelled “reactionary.” Yet each of them was a progressive in his own right. Rand considered industrial development and individual freedom as obvious landmarks of progress: she opposed vehemently to the environmentalist and collectivist—that is, anti-industrial, anti-economic growth, anti-conservative rights—as a “return of the primitive.”
As for Lothrop Stoddard, he rebuffed Bolshevism and environmentalism as pre-scientific ratiocinations that willingly ignored human differences and the proper value of civilization. These “mistakes”, he said, are older than biological discoveries and stem from “degenerate” elements who would rather destroy civilization than letting it progress without them.
The only new thing about Bolshevism is its ” rationalizing ” of rebellious emotions into an exceedingly insidious and persuasive philosophy of revolt which has not merely welded all the real social rebels, but has also deluded many misguided dupes, blind to what Bolshevism implies. (Stoddard, Revolt Against Civilization, chap.8)
I also remember an old-fashioned Marxist who claimed feminism was “reactionary” because, he said, it comes from the wealthy and urbanized bourgeoisie, and hijacks the attention and care given to working classes for the benefit of actual exploiters. This guy’s progressivism has fallen out of grace, likely because it showed unable to destroy Western countries, but he is no less right according to his own logic.
Now, of course, we could say that MRAs are the real progressives as men’s rights are a progress, or that asserting our identities and associated rights are a progress, perhaps more so than SJW savagery and unrestrained hypergamy.
4. Openness or open-mindedness
We all heard about how being “open to new ideas” and possibilities, or being “open-minded” was good. In practice, what the liberals mean when they talk about openness or open-minded is “be a Leftist and believe in our notion of progress.” You have to be uncritical, hyper-sympathetic towards the last tranny or BLM activist that whines about how mistreated and misunderstood he is—and if you are “open” to wasting your money on the latest trendy fashion, it is even better.
But try being open-minded towards what the Left tags as “far right” or “extreme”, for example men’s right, race realism, skepticism on their dogmas such as anthropogenic global warming, or tradition… and it won’t be long before they shriek at you, in a typical display of rather irrational dirtiness psychology. “These ideas are impure! They are contagious!”
Open-mindedness along their lines means being gullible to media and college propaganda. You have to let the managers and social engineers fabric your consent, as Chomsky would put it. They want your mind to be open so they can fulfill it with self-hate and garbage. When it comes to better things libtards suspend open-mindedness, to the point of refusing any objective inquiry and hiding behind their biased, accusatory rhetoric.
In itself, openness or open-mindedness is a double-edged sword. It can, and should be used by those who are intelligent or morally structured enough to toy with potentially dangerous ideas. As to the others, those who are too easily tempted or misdirect by demagogues, especially women—who by their vote always favoured an anti-family, economy-devouring Big State—, the low-IQ and the unhinged, I think they should follow the lead of more qualified individuals.
5. Modern nationhood and citizenship
Since time immemorial peoples have been ethnocultural groups. Romans used the term natio to refer to a particular people, say, the Gaul, the Goths or the Basque. They also used the term civis to refer to a man as a member of his city, thus belonging to it.
Both words have been emptied of their substantial meaning. “Nation” is now mostly used to denote an abstract, bureaucratized State whom anyone can be a national if the bureaucrats hand him a stamped piece of paper. “Citizenship” refers to the pretense to identify with a particular public responsibility or to a world under globalist power: Leftists often claim to be “just citizens” or speak “in the name of the citizens of X place” when they are actually carrying cultural warfare. Remember when a bunch of hateful swindlers tried to rob Sherry Spencer, Richard Spencer’s mom, of her real estate by forcing her to sell it at a cheap price? Complacent media said they were just citizens, or that “the town” was doing it. Yeah, sure.
Citizenship today is a mean to virtue-signal when you are an urban elf. It has become empty, fictitious—it refers to a world of nowhere and more subtly to belonging to a globalist class that abandoned its actual fellow citizens or ethnic brothers long ago.
6. “Social struggles” and “achievements”
When they referred to actually good causes, such as trade unions maintaining a high standard of living for most workers and fostering a meritocratic middle-class, these words ringed well. Today, they seem to refer more to the unwarranted privileges of State officers—when theft through taxes and economic rent are presented as something “social.”
The heroic epic of “social achievements”, which conveniently forgets that there is no free lunch and that if a particular segment of population benefits much from them it must be at the expense of the others, covers a host of barely examined ill effects. When it is used to glorify the welfare State, it forgets how such a State tends to disintegrate organic social life by taking away charity or generosity, how it fosters a big parasitic and paternalist State, how it allows females to destroy their families, or how it attracts immigrants eager to get a check and imposes unfair burdens on the productive citizens—I’m thinking about, say, the middle classes who paid for Obamacare, not about cutting taxes for Monsanto.
Conclusion
From fake smiles and cute façades to seemingly innocuous buzzwords such as “you go girl”, “sex positivity” or “self-acceptance” – which sounds better than complacency – the culture conflict-mongerers managed to push their disruptions and degeneration into normality. One step at a time, from actual normalcy to an alien nation, all this believing they were cool or on the good side of history.
Shatter the illusion by explaining what stands behind and unveil the inner vacuity or potentially polymorphous use of the word. May progress not be “progress” and may the mainstream view of justice not be the anti-white, misandric “social justice.” They aren’t smarter than we are, just more manipulative.
- China's Largest Dairy Operator Suddenly Crashes 90% To Record Low, Muddy Waters Says "Worth Close To Zero"
In December 2016, Muddy Waters’ Carson Block said China’s largest dairy farm operator, Hong-Kong listed China Huishan Dairy Holdings Co., is “worth close to zero” and questioned its profitability in a report. Today, with no catalyst, it suddenly almost is. The stock collapsed over 90% in minutes to a record low.
The sudden crash wiped out about $4.2 billion in market value in the stock, which is a member of the MSCI China Index.
In December, Muddy Waters alleged that Huishan had been overstating its spending on its cow farms by as much as 1.6 billion yuan to “support the company’s income statement.” The report also alleged that the company made an unannounced transfer of a subsidiary that owned at least four cow farms to an undisclosed related party and Muddy Waters concluded that Chairman Yang Kai controls the subsidiary and farms. Those findings came from several months of research including visits to 35 farms and five production facilities, drone flyovers of Huishan sites and interviews with alfalfa suppliers, according to the report. Muddy Waters said it has shorted Huishan’s stock.
“It will be even harder for Huishan to get funded in the capital market after the report, amid a couple of earlier allegations that have raised some red flags to investors,” said Robin Yuen, an analyst at RHB OSK Securities Hong Kong Ltd. Still, Huishan’s shares and operations are unlikely to “collapse” due to its high share concentration and sufficient cash flow generated by its dairy business, he said by telephone.
About 73 percent of Huishan’s shares are held by Champ Harvest Ltd., a company that’s in turn 90-percent owned by Yang. A buying spree by Yang had supported the shares last year, making it a painful trade for short sellers. A one-year rally of about 80 percent through a peak in June had made the shares expensive.
Well that is all over now!!
- SNB Spent $68 Billion On Currency Manipulation In 2016
While Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with China for manipulating its currency, he appears to have recently figured out that over the past 2 years Beijing has been spending hundreds of billions in dollar to strengthen, not weaken, the Yuan and to halt the ~$1 trillion in capital flight from China. But while everyone knows that the biggest currency manipulation in the world, and perhaps the Milky Way galaxy is Japan, which now owns 40% of all JGBs in its ongoing attempt to pressure the Yen lower and explains why Abe was trembling when he met with Trump, terrified the US president would tell him to stop, one place where Trump may want to look is Europe’s famously “neutral” country, which however continues to be quite bellicose when it comes to currency warfare. Overnight, the SNB announced that in 2016 it spent 67.1 billion Swiss francs, or $67.6 billion, to purchase foreign currencies in an effort to weaken its currency.
The amount, published in the central bank’s annual report on Thursday, was roughly CHF20 billion lower than the 2015 total of 86.1 billion francs and a record of 188 billion spent in 2012. What is notable is that in 2015, the Swiss National Bank ended its 1.20 EURCHF peg, which ended up costing the SNB tens of billions in FX losses.
As shown in the chart below, the SNB has used interventions for the better part of a decade to keep the franc, Europe’s preeminent flight to safety currency, in check and lessen the risk of deflation. After it gave up its currency cap in early 2015, the SNB has also relied on a negative deposit rate to counter appreciation pressure. It reaffirmed that two-pillar policy stance last week.
Additionally, as part of its annual report, the SNB reported that at the end of 2016, the SNB’s assets hit a record CHF 747 billion, compared to CHF 641 billion the previous year, higher than the country’s total GDP. The central bank’s assets consisted almost exclusively of currency reserves, that is gold and foreign currency investments. Currency reserves were up by CHF 89 billion year-on-year to CHF 692 billion, principally due to inflows from foreign currency purchases and valuation gains.
And since the SNB is the only central banks which admits it is an aggressive hedge fund, it also reports both the composition of its balance sheet and the return on assets, and in 2016 it generated a profit on currency reserves of 3.8%. Meanwhile, returns on gold and foreign exchange reserves were 11.1% and 3.3% respectively.
What is paradoxical is that despite gold generating the SNB’s highest return not only in 2016 (11.1%) and over the entire 2002-2016 period, at 6.5%, the central bank has been aggressively reducing the relative size of its gold-denominated assets over the past 7 years, mostly as a result of purchases of USD-denominated stocks and bonds.
In 2016, both fixed income investments and equities contributed to the SNB’s bottom line. On the other hand, the slight appreciation of the Swiss franc reduced the return.
The SNB also revealed that in 2016, the SNB held 20% of its foreign exchange reserves in the form of equity investments. Measured in Swiss francs, the average annual return on equities since their introduction in 2005 has been 2.8%; the return on bonds has averaged 0.7%.
Finally, for those confused that the SNB is so open about its purchases and holdings of mostly US stocks, this is how the central bank justifies its policy of active stock management:
The contribution of equities to preserving the value of the currency reserves and building the SNB’s equity base has thus been very substantial during this period.
We look forward to how this boilerplate language will change after the next equity market crash which will wipe out tens of billions in “value” from the SNB’s balance sheet.
- Paul Craig Roberts: "In America Today, Facts Cannot Compete With Lies"
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
Unable to provide an ounce of evidence that a Trump/Putin conspiracy stole the presidential election from Hillary Clinton, the corrupt US “intelligence” agencies are shifting their focus to social media and to Internet sites such as Alex Jones and Breitbart. Little doubt the FBI investigation will trickle down to Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept, Zero Hedge, the Ron Paul Institute, Nomi Prins, Naked Capitalism, Lew Rockwell, Global Research, antiwar.com, and to others on the PropOrNot, Harvard Library, and Le Monde lists, such as top Reagan administration officials David Stockman and myself. It is extraordinary that the FBI is so desperate to protect the budget of the military/security complex that it brings such embarrassment to itself. Who in the future will believe any FBI report or anything a FBI official says?
Those behind this “investigation” understand that it is so ridiculous that they must give it gravity and credibility. They selected two reporters, Peter Stone and Greg Gordon, in the McClatchy News Washington Bureau, who fit Udo Ulfkotte’s definition of “bought journalists.” Hiding behind anonymous sources—“two people familiar with the inquiry” and “sources who spoke on condition of anonymity”—the presstitutes fell in with the attack on independent media, reporting that one former US intelligence official said: “This may be one of the most highly impactful information operations in the history of intelligence.” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article139695453.html
Wow! A totally ridiculous “investigation” is one of the most important in history. The implication is that the Russians are operating through scores or hundreds of independent media sites to control how Americans vote.
There was once a time in America when people were skeptical of anonymous sources. It was widely understood that anyone could tell a reporter anything and that a reporter could claim an anonymous source whether or not the source existed. Perhaps it was the Watergate “investigation” by the Washington Post that gave anonymity credibility. The Post’s reports made it sound like any sources ratting on Nixon’s perfidy was at risk of their lives, and the subtle emphasis on risk gave anonymity credibility.
The real story under our noses is not a Trump/Putin/independent media conspiracy to steal the presidential election. The real story is the totally obvious collusion between the Hillary forces, the US print and TV media (with the partial exception of Fox News), and the CIA and FBI to steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, the presidential election from Donald Trump, and to delegitimize Trump’s election.
The theft of the nomination from Sanders is precisely what the leaked Podesta emails show. The totally one-sided presstitute support for Hillary and full-scale assault on Trump clearly show the presstitutes participation in the collusion. The extraordinary lies told in public by Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan clearly demonstrate the CIA’s lead in the attempted frame-up of Trump and his team. FBI Director Comey’s statement the day before the presidential election that the FBI had once again cleared Hillary of criminal charges sent the Dow up 371 points and set the stage for a Hillary election victory.
Why are not any of these hard facts in the news?
Why, instead, do the presstitutes and “intelligence” agencies report nothing but fake news, supported by anonymous “sources”? Why is a false reality being constructed, and the hard facts ignored?
Note another extremely strange feature of our strange time. Elements of the liberal/progressive/left portray President Trump as a member of the One Percent operating for the One Percent against the people and filling his government up with generals and his budget with more military spending. Why then is Trump under full-scale assault from the military/security complex? Why are they working to contradict, delegitimize and impeach their own agent?
If Americans were a thinking people, or even a people capable of thought, how could such inconsistent disinformation dominate public discussion?
What we should be scared about is that in America today, facts cannot compete with lies.
The McClatchy story describing a pointless investigation as one of the most important in history is working its way through the media. See:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/21/fbi-probing-breitbart-infowars-in-russian-influence-investigation/
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/03/21/fbis-russia-probe-turns-focus-on-social-media-bots/print/
Are we to conclude that America’s corrupt and disloyal “intelligence” agencies are a direct threat to democracy, that they are committed to overthrowing Trump’s presidency in a “color revolution,” that, unable to provide any evidence whatsoever for their conspiracy theory of a Trump/Putin collusion to steal the presidential election, the “intelligence” agencies have moved on to the discredit the independent Internet media that are in the way of the “intelligence” agencies’ control over explanations?
It is a hard fact that the Democrats, US “intelligence,” and the presstitutes are absolutely determined to control the explanations given to the American people and the wider world.
The Agents are out in force, and Neo is nowhere in sight.
The demonization of Russia and the extraordinary level of tension that the ignorant and foolish Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes created with Russia are disconcerting, indeed, frightening to those, such as myself, Patrick Buchanan, and Stephen Cohen, who experienced the long decades of the Cold War. We have never seen such highly provocative, entirely gratuitous behavior of one nuclear power toward another as the behavior of the US toward Russia over the past six presidential terms. What the Cold Warriors of the time experienced was a gradual buildup of mutual trust that enabled Reagan and Gorbachev to end the Cold War and remove the threat of nuclear Armageddon.
In contrast, the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes, the FBI, CIA, NSA, the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, and the rest of the presstitutes, the right-wing Republicans, such as Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Ben Sasse, the Democratic Party, and the liberal/progressive/left have convinced Russia, in the words of Russia’s President Putin, that “we cannot trust the United States.”
This “achievement” of these idiots comprises the greatest crime humans have committed in their entire history. The atomic bombs with which the Americans gratuitously destroyed two Japanese cities are mere pop guns compared to the thermo-nuclear weapons of today. Some of the crazed neoconservatives erroneously believe that Russia is not sufficiently well-armed to respond to US aggression, but the fact of the matter is that Russia’s strategic weapons are superior and more powerful than those of the US.
How can it be anything other than a death wish for European governments to be egging on conflict with Russia, for women marching not against war but against Trump for wanting to reduce tensions with Russia, for US “intelligence” to be totally committed to orchestrating a “Russian threat” that all but guarantees thermo-nuclear war? One would think that people would be marching in favor of reduced tensions with Russia and demanding that Trump deliver on this promise, not that they would be out opposing Trump. What is the importance of Identity Politics compared to nuclear war?
How can Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Europeans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and Japanese contain their outrage against the governments that are putting the life of the planet at risk for nothing except the budget and power of the US military/security complex? Trump is silly to roll back environmental protections, but this pales in comparison to the environmental damage of thermo-nuclear war.
How can the left-wing be lost in Identity Politics while the life of the planet is being put at extreme risk?
Why did CounterPunch recently and suddenly abandon the working class and peace and take up the cause of the victim groups of Identity Politics— women, blacks, homosexuals, lesbians, transgendered, and Muslim refugees (see Eric Draitser CP, Vol. 24, No. 1), the cause of the EU and globalism (see http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/20/brexit-nationalism-and-the-damage-done/ ) which benefits only the One Percent, and the demonization of Trump and Putin? Perhaps it is only a coincidence, but CounterPunch’s collapse coincides with CP being put on and removed from the PropOrNot list of Russian agents/dupes. My columns, for years a welcome feature on CounterPunch, suddenly ceased to appear. We have had no explanation from CounterPunch why the site suddenly gave up on peace and bread.
One might think that the audacity of the lies from the FBI, CIA, NSA and their media whores would provoke a powerful response from the liberal/progressive/left and from European populations, but it hasn’t.
What about Trump himself? Has he been forced to abandon his goal of normal relations with Russia, as this article in the Intercept suggests? https://theintercept.com/2017/03/21/revolving-door-military/ If not, is Trump filling top Pentagon and Homeland Security positions with generals and defense contractors in order to neutralize the military from participating in a CIA/presstitute coup against him?
If Trump is eliminated, with Pence as VP and the list of appointees provided by the Intercept, the US government will pass into the hands of the military/security complex for the remainder of its existence.
Is Trump now focused on protecting himself instead of protecting all of us from a deadly conflict with Russia?
If so, this is the achievement of the US “intelligence” services, the Democratic Party, right-wing Republicans, the presstitute media, and the liberal/progressive/left.
If anyone remains to write the history of the Great Incineration, the identity of those responsible is completely clear.
- Death & Taxes… And Debt
Nothing in this world is certain, except death and taxes… and $62,000 debt.
According to December 2016 data provided to Credit.com by credit bureau Experian, 73% of consumers had outstanding debt when they were reported as dead.
Those consumers carried an average total balance of $61,554, including mortgage debt. Without home loans, the average balance was $12,875. Among the 73% of consumers who had debt when they died, about 68% had credit card balances.
The next most common kind of debt was mortgage debt (37%), followed by auto loans (25%), personal loans (12%) and student loans (6%). These were the average unpaid balances: credit cards, $4,531; auto loans, $17,111; personal loans, $14,793; and student loans, $25,391.
That’s a lot of debt, and, as Fox Business reports, it doesn’t just disappear when someone dies.
For the most part, your debt dies with you, but that doesn’t mean it won’t affect the people you leave behind.
“Debt belongs to the deceased person or that person’s estate,” said Darra L. Rayndon, an estate planning attorney with Clark Hill in Scottsdale, Arizona. If someone has enough assets to cover their debts, the creditors get paid, and beneficiaries receive whatever remains. But if there aren’t enough assets to satisfy debts, creditors lose out (they may get some, but not all, of what they’re owed). Family members do not then become responsible for the debt, as some people worry they might.
That’s the general idea, but things are not always that straightforward. The type of debt you have, where you live and the value of your estate significantly affects the complexity of the situation. (For example, federal student loan debt Opens a New Window. is eligible for cancellation upon a borrower’s death, but private student loan companies tend not to offer the same benefit. They can go after the borrower’s estate for payment.)
There are lots of ways things can get messy. Say your only asset is a home other people live in. That asset must be used to satisfy debts, whether it’s the mortgage on that home or a lot of credit card debt, meaning the people who live there may have to take over the mortgage, or your family may need to sell the home in order to pay creditors. Accounts with co-signers or co-applicants can also result in the debt falling on someone else’s shoulders. Community property states, where spouses share ownership of property, also handle debts acquired during a marriage a little differently.
The bottom line – even after you're dead, debt servitude is stil an anchor around your neck.
- A New Trend Emerges – Digital Gold "Gifting" Gains Popularity In China
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
I rarely write about gold these days, but the following from Reuters caught my attention.
BEIJING/SHANGHAI, March 7, China’s virtual gifting market, typically the domain of plugged-in young consumers celebrating special occasions or flirting, is luring major financial institutions keen to boost trade of another auspicious commodity: gold.
Tencent’s digital gold packets, known as “microgold”, are backed by the country’s biggest bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC). They allow users to send funds that track the real-time value of gold to friends over the firm’s popular messaging platform WeChat.
It’s a financial innovation on the concept of virtual gifts, such as digital roses and chocolates, more commonly used in online communities and which have more sentimental value than any tangible economic worth.
For financial institutions, China’s booming virtual goods and smartphone-driven exchanges offer new markets to boost trading volumes in everything from banking services to gems.
ICBC, in an internal memo seen by Reuters and sent to staff on Friday, said the WeChat microgold platform had helped drive “explosive growth” in new gold accounts.
Over the recent Lunar New Year period, WeChat users sent 70,000 microgold packets worth just under 100 million yuan ($14.51 million) across the chat platform, the ICBC document said. It expects over 300,000 new gold accounts to be opened as a result of the Tencent tie-up. Neither ICBC nor Tencent were immediately available for comment.
While the volumes are relatively small, the take-up of similar virtual products on the WeChat platform suggests room for growth.
Kong Lingxin, a 20-year-old student from the northern city of Tianjin, uses her smartphone to buy, gift and hoard gold online.
Kong has spent 10,000 yuan ($1,452.88) of her savings on gold derivative products this year on Alibaba Group Holding Ltd-linked platform “Cun Jinbao” – literally “store golden treasure”.
“My family has a history of collecting gold bars, which influenced my choice of investment,” said Kong. “I chose an internet platform because it’s easy to track gold prices, see your profits and make trades.”
Gold analysts said the push by tech firms into the sector, though still at an early stage, had potential longer-term to stir up a sluggish Asian market if it caught on.
“It will become a support for gold demand and the gold price if WeChat gold packets become popular, considering the amount of traditional red envelopes users send,” said Guotai Junan gold analyst Xie Qingpeng.
Beijing has taken note of the trend. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) issued a guideline last week, calling for tech to play a bigger role in gold trading.
Amid a property price spike, gold offers younger buyers a more affordable and accessible investment.
“It’s nearly impossible for young people to invest in property in first tier cities in China. Alternatively, they put small amounts into gold, as a low risk investment,” said Helen Lao, Singapore-based metals analyst at Argonaut Securities.
I think those last few lines will be a very important factor for gold demand going forward, as young Chinese with savings to protect struggle with where to put their money.
Meanwhile, gold’s been pretty boring for a while now. I think that might change soon. As I tweeted earlier today.
I feel like there's a decent amount of negativity and apathy with gold right now.
Feels bullish.— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) March 23, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
- Thursday Humor: Medicare Part G?
Given today’s vote fiasco, this seemed highly appropriate…
If you are an older senior citizen and can no longer take care of yourself and need Long-Term Care, but the government says there is no Nursing Home care available for you, what do you do?
You may opt for Medicare Part G.
- The plan gives anyone 75 or older a gun (Part G) and one bullet.
- You may then shoot one worthless politician.
- This means you will be sent to prison for the rest of your life where you will receive three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating and air conditioning, cable TV, a library, and all the health care you need.
- Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That’s great. Need a hearing aid, new hip, knees, kidney, lungs, sex change, or heart? They are all covered!
- As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you at least as often as they do now!
And, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you they can’t afford for you to go into a nursing home. And you will get rid of a useless politician while you are at it.
And now, because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any more income taxes!
Is this a great country or what?
Now that you have solved your senior Long-Term Care problem, enjoy the rest of your week!
Source: Unknown
- Trump Issues An Ultimatum To House Republicans: Vote On Friday Or Obamacare Stays
Update: Trump’s bluff may be working already. Following Trump’s ultimatum, Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus said that the healthcare bill has been improved, and that the Freedom Caucus will meet and discuss the revised bill. And while Meadows is maintaining a solid front for now, saying he is a “No” vote right now, with Trump having shone the spotlight fully on the Freedom Caucus, and thus providing republicans with a scapegoat should the vote fail tomorrow, we would not find it at all surprising if the Freedom Caucus were to fold overnight following “intense deliberations.”
* * *
Following a day of narrative twists and turns ahead of what was supposed to be a Thursday night vote to repeal Obamacare, a vote which was pulled in the last moment when over 30 conservative and moderate House republicans threatened to vote against the Ryan/Trump plan, Trump has had enough with the Freedom Caucus dissenters and has issued an informal ultimatum: vote to repeal Obamacare on Friday or Obamacare stays.
Trump is demanding a vote Friday in the House on the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said according to Reuters. If the bill fails, Trump is prepared to move on and leave Obamacare in place the budget director added.
Trump officials meeting with the House GOP conference said Trump is done negotiating over the legislation, which was set to come up for a vote Thursday but was delayed.
Mulvaney told the GOP conference that Trump wants a vote on Friday during a dramatic closed-door meeting, according to a GOP source in the room. If the vote fails, Trump will move on to other priorities and ObamaCare will stay as the law of the land, Mulvaney said.
There were last-minute changes being considered to the bill. But it was unclear whether the House of Representatives would be able to pass it, said North Carolina Congressman Mark Meadows, the chairman of a group of conservatives known as the Freedom Caucus, which has been critical of the bill. “I’m still optimistic” about reaching an agreement, Meadows told reporters.
Having met with Paul Ryan on Thursday evening, Trump’s right hand man Steve Bannon told reporters after the House Republican conference that he expects lawmakers to vote Friday on the health-care bill. When asked if he’s confident there’s enough votes for passage: “We’re going to vote and we’ll see.”
Rep. Chris Collins confirmed the Trump administration’s message after the meeting. Trump is done negotiating, he said. “We have to have a vote tomorrow. He expects it to pass, but he’s moving on if for some reason it didn’t,” Collins said.
According to The Hill, the developments set up a likely vote on the measure Friday afternoon.
It remains unclear just how Trump’s ultimatum will change the minds of dozens of Republicans who have vowed to oppose the bill, putting them into a direct confrontation with their president. With all of the House’s Democrats expected to vote against the bill, the GOP can only afford 22 defections.
Additionally, even if their replacement plan does eventually get approval from the House, the legislation faces an even tougher fight in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Meanwhile, in a worst case scenario, in which the House votes tomorrow and fails to generate the needed majority of votes, it is unclear just how Trump can “move forward” under the reconciliation process, as tax reform is part and parcel with deficit-reducing – as scored by the CBO – Republican health bill. Should Trump push on, at best it will mean he has an even smaller tax cut cushion. Furthermore, should Trump further antagonize the Freedom Caucus, a far bigger problem for Trump and the government will be if the conservative wing refuses to budge on the debt ceiling negotiation, because should the US be unable to once again indefinitely extend the debt ceiling limit, the US will suddenly have far greater problems than repealing Obamacare.
- Chinese President Throws Weight Behind Israel/Palestine Peace, Two-State Solution
Authored by James Holbrooks via TheAntiMedia.org,
While hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Beijing on Tuesday, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for peace between Israel and Palestine and said an independent Palestinian state should be established “as soon as possible.”
“The conflict between Israel and Palestine has had a long lasting impact on the Middle East,” Xi said. “China appreciates that Israeli side will continue to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the issue of the ‘two-state solution.’”
China’s premier, Li Keqiang, had warmly received the Israeli prime minister on Monday in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.
“The Chinese people and the Jewish people are both great peoples of the world,” Li said at the meeting.
Netanyahu, similarly amenable, praised China as a world leader in technology and said there are many areas where the two nations can collaborate.
“And I would like to have the opportunity to exchange views with you and to see how we can cooperate together for the advancement of security, peace and stability, and prosperity,” Netanyahu said Monday.
He stuck to this note while speaking with the Chinese president on Tuesday.
“We have always believed, as we discussed on my previous visit,” Netanyahu said, “that Israel can be a partner, a junior partner, but a perfect partner for China in the development of a variety of technologies that change the way we live, how long we live, how healthy we live, the water we drink, the food we eat, the milk that we drink — in every area.”
In fact, in terms of trade, Netanyahu wants China to grant Israel a special status. Back in January, China set restrictions on its citizens’ overseas spending in an effort to boost domestic revenue. Now, the Israeli prime minister is asking China’s president for an economic waiver.
“I asked for an exemption on the general restrictions,” Netanyahu told reporters after his meeting with Xi on Tuesday. “I said that Israel’s a special case. It’s a technology powerhouse that has no market. It has significance for technology but it doesn’t have any significance in terms of volume on markets or currencies, or anything. Israel is very big in technology but small in market weight.”
The Israeli leader claims Xi is willing to go along with the idea, though no details of such an arrangement have been made public. Also unknown is whether such a deal would be contingent upon Israel seeking a peaceful two-state solution to its conflict with Palestine, as President Xi indicated Tuesday he supports.
Netanyahu appeared to have no comment in response to Xi’s remarks about a two-state solution.
In February, President Trump backed away from the White House’s long-purported goal of reaching that compromise, instead leaving the door open for whatever plan the two sides agree on.
“If Israel and the Palestinians are happy, I’m happy with the one they like the best,” the U.S. president said.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...