Giant loans to Ukraine are what prevented the Bank-Debt-Currency-Pyramid-Scheme from collapsing.
Macron is simply doing his Masters' will, to create conditions where exponentially larger loans are possible in World War.
Bank Debt as currency on par with, rather than discounted from, commodity currency requires each subsequent tranche of debt to be exponentially larger than the previous, else too little currency exists to retire the previous tranche.
Allowing this system to be legal tender via State Sponsored Monopoly as Legal Tender transforms nations into Plantations with Plantation Chattel Slavery at their core.
As with all Chattel Slavery Plantations, when they've used up the Chattel, then they seek to dispose of them as quickly as possible, and import new Chattel Slaves.
The War European Leaders want is for disposing of the European population.
"Immigration" is for replacing the Europeans with new Chattel Slaves.
Of the land of Bankster Dominion I can say this: Never in human history have so few so selfishly plotted the murder of so many in order to avoid admitting their own bankruptcy.
A recent conversation I had with a young adult highlights the problems with the green ideology.
She asserted that temperatures were too hot.
I replied with the question, "How hot is too hot? And how cool is not hot enough?"
She had no answer because she had no objective standards or data.
Her position on carbon dioxide was identical. Carbon dioxide, she said, is too high.
I replied with a question, " how high is too high? And what level is too low? What are your standards?"
She had no answer. When pressed on both of these issues she fell back on the illusion of popular consensus. However , consensus and science have nothing to do with one another.
The very concept that consensus has anything to do with science is an appeal to authority , which is a logical fallacy. Authority is not science. A persistent failure to disprove a hypothesis is science.
The entire argument about the climate is one of relative levels. And that argument entirely lacks any grounding in any specific level that is logical or objective.
It is an entirely subjective standard which asserts the temperatures are too high because they are the highest since the pleistocene. Let us grant that most people have no idea when the pleistocene began or ended or what its temperatures were or how they related to any other period of times temperatures.
So let's set the record straight. The pleistocene was an ice age.
We are saying that temperatures are too high and C02 too high, because they are higher than the levels of those same things were during an ice age.
Moreover, that ice age never ended. We are still in it.
Our current period of time is called the holocene. It differs from the pleistocene only because it's the period when we thought that human civilization began.
In fact , humans existed for the entirety of the pleistocene and holocene.
Both of these epochs are contained within the quaternary.
The quaternary has lasted since two and a half million years ago and continues today.
The quaternary is an ice age.
Humans have existed for significant portions of the quaternary. And hominids , very similar to humans , existed at least a million years before the quaternary.
Before the quaternary temperatures were very much higher than they are today. There were redwood trees growing in the arctic circle before the quaternary. They are still there buried in the soil. The implication is that the climate there was similar to california.
The north pole , having a climate similar to california is a lot warmer than today.
Alternatively, an objective standard for temperatures and C02 would be their effects on living things. C02 primarily affects plant growth.
Today , C02 is about 420 ppm. Plants prefer 1200 p p m, because that was the prevailing c 02 level when plants evolved and over the last three hundred million years.
Conversely the prevailing C02 levels during the pleistocene ice age, which Greenists , so desperately wish to return to, varied from 180 ppm to 225ppm.
The C02 level referred to as quote "the death of plants" occurs at between 150 ppm and 180 ppm, depending upon species.
Below these levels photosynthesis is impossible. Below these levels , all plants , all plankton , and all the animals who eat those plants and so on die.
Therefore , the Greenists are actually advocating a c 02 level that is fatal to all living things on earth.
And this has happened before.
Immediately before the dinosaurs there was a period of cold known as the late paleozoic ice house. It is remarkable because before that period life on earth was dominated by life forms totally unrelated to the dominant life forms today. They were invertebrates like Trilobites.
They all died.
It appears that the greenists wish to repeat that episode.
I would submit that we can objectively say that one hundred and eighty parts per million CO2 is too low.
I would suggest that greenhouses indicate that 1200 ppm CO2 is adequate.
"Too high" is something that is much greater than 1200 ppm.
1200ppm is associated with non-ice-age temperatures much higher than today. 180ppm is associated with much lower temperatures.
Those are objective standards relating to the continued existence of Life on Earth.
Because whatever the Greenist's concerns are, they are unconcerned about life on earth.
The judge has ruled on probable cause for fictitious complainants pursuant to events no one can prove ever happened anywhere to anyone.
The first requirement for the Judiciary is a for there to exist a controversy brought by a complainant. The Judiciary commits felonies when they roam seeking to create cases to judge.
The second requirement before a judge may render Judgement is that plaintiffs must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions from which the controversy arose actually happened, habeus corpus, and that the accused is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the person who committed that action.
It is ironic that a supposed judge will take a case where no specific plaintiffs exist, and name no specific action as cause for the case but only broad generalizations, and cannot even prove that ANY of those generalizations happened anywhere in the country, much less DC, and lacking a specific crime to complain of, or victim to whom it might have happened then demands that the Congress surrender its lawmakers authority to create the INA and that the Executive Branch surrender their Law Enforcement Authority over the INA - Neither demand authorized under any constitution or law anywhere in the country under any contingency whatsoever - on the basis that the government lacked probable cause to do the thing that no one can prove happened to the individual that no one can name, presuming the government to be guilty of the unspecified crime towards the unspecified person.
So let's see....Judge Howell here just nullified:
Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 - Congress is given power over the importation of persons.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 "Habeus Corpus" (show the body) requiring proof a crime occurred before courts and government may make rulings.
Article 2 Section 3, nullified Article 3, Section 2, Clause - Executive Branch given Authority to "Take care" the laws are faithfully executed.
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 - Requiring the Judiciary to only hear actual complaints with an actual complainant as litmus of the existence of a controversy.
Amendments 5 and 14 requiring due process of law - which includes a presumption that the plaintiff is innocent until proven otherwise - such as by a complaint lacking a specific complainant to whom a specific violation of probable cause occurred.
If there is no verifiable complainant with an individual verifiable name who can prove that 'something' happened to them, that the something was illegal, and that the person or agency accused did that something factually DID do it - then there are NONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS LEVIED UPON ARTICLE 3 COURTS TO HEAR THE ISSUE MUCH LESS RULE ON THEM.
The Constitution cannot coexist with the landslide of unsupported assertions and power-grabs made by the inferior Courts of the judiciary.
AND THAT IS THE REAL POINT.
THEY ARE AT WAR WITH THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE BEHEST OF HOSTILE FOREIGN POWERS, SPECIFICALLY CUBA, VENEZUELA, CHINA, AND DARE I say it ... apparently Great Britain, as well as a collection of drug cartels.
Thats who these judges extra curricular funds and perks come from.
That is who funds their "Judicial Fellowships".
If you look at the NGOs who fund them on their Form 990's on Pro-Publica you will find they are funded by foundations, that those funds find their way to these judges bank accounts and those of their close relations.
The Foundations who fund the NGOs also file Form 990s.
If you then look you will see that the Foundations are funded by foreign registered Foundations.
And if you access the foreign records of the foreign Foundations it tells you in black and white why this is happening.
THEY ARE TRAITORS. THEY SOLD US OUT FOR FOREIGN MONEY.
(Full disclosure, the UK part is both funding and propaganda closely connected with the UK government and the Labour Party.)
Held without charges, evidence, trial, or jury, and given cruel and unusual (actually unprecedented) treatment in violation of Article 3, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments?
You expect what?
Those are the core basis of the Authorization for there to exist such a thing as a Federal Government.
Not just you, but your whole region, and every individual who participated in this crime against humanity need to be sent to explain yourselces to your maker immediately.
Sue the government in a government court, run by the government, in hopes they will pay you government money rather than jail you, or simply execute you summarily?
You have serious sanity issues.
A government that will hold you for years without trial, jury, or charges, when all of the above was illegal for them to do, is a government that will find it easier to murder you than to talk to you.
If they crossed those lines (which they absolutely beyond question have), why would they ever cross back without a gun to their heads???????????
Boasberg works for foreign nations and their drug cartels. He is a traitor at war with the United States who has declared himself supreme over at least two of the three branches of government.
If such as he cannot be removed from within the system soon, then the system has terminally failed and must be wholly replaced, and its guardians slaughtered. This can end in three ways: Return to accountability and Rule of Law, a slaughterhouse where the losers are exterminated like the Demons they are in a civil war, or a general extinction of life.
The first is the least messy, and the one I advocate for. But it is unlikely that people who live for, "Me First" and "Apres Moi, Le Deluge" are capable, much less willing to surrender any part of their Powers or wealth stolen under the auspices of government.
Very well. Then it will be to the Death, most likely. One way or the other.
The time for negotiating with vermin is coming to a close.
Excuse me, Mr President, but given that the administration is incapable even of prosecuting obvious breaches of Law that were recorded on video, such as Comey's, doesn't it stretch the imagination beyond breaking to say they will be able to void all these policies, documents, and prosecute these felons?
I am struck by the comparative elegance of the drug adoption system before the FDA.
Drug efficacy was then tried first by the terminally ill desperate for any path to survival, the terminally naive, and the terminally stupid.
By the time they finished voluntarily trials, the efficacy would be known. If the drug was dangerous then it would rapidly kill all three groups, the elimination of the latter two of which was both voluntary, and net beneficial: those incapable of survival voluntarily dedicated their incapacity to the betterment of humanity.
Alternatively, if the drug worked, then the terminally ill would recover, which was a net gain to society, while the other two would find other methods to voluntarily kill themselves. Net-Net a benefit.
Under a regulatory regime we spend 12% of GDP to force companies to spend 30% their GDP to go through an obstacle course where the very people made destitute by the regulatory costs volunteer to be lab rats. We let the terminally ill die while testing is ongoing. The terminally naive and terminally stupid vote for more regulation before killing themselves anyway with fentanyl.
Meaning that everyone who died under the previous system still dies, but now we throw 12% of GDP plus millions of formerly self-supporting citizens impoverished by the spending into a fire so we can congratulate ourselves...
Your claim is that "supply and demand" pricing depend on Capitalism to operate?
Do you know anything about the Soviet Union or China at all??
Serious question.
Nothing in this universe can change supply-demand pricing. Because the cause of it is The Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that NOTHING CAN CHANGE STATES WITHOUT ENERGY INPUT...
...ergo Nothing can EVER be free. Ergo...supply and demand result from physics applied to the needs of living things.
Will you next tell me that gravity is a capitalist construct?
But which part of US Law gives any government anywhere the authority to prosecute people for harms they have not yet committed (and might never commit)... a.k.a. "Regulation".
While its benefits vs a tort litigation system are theoretical, the costs of regulation are known.
The primary costs of the regulatory State are between 7% and 12% of gdp annually...
So it costs everyone between $2.2 and $3.7 TRILLION annually.
That is larger than Federal deficits.
AND
Those are just the direct costs.
The indirect compliance costs are a multiple of that.
And the opportunity costs related to the artificial constraints are an order of magnitude larger.
Recent Comments
Everyone at every level of every government is vastly less capable than they pretend to be.
That is why.
Giant loans to Ukraine are what prevented the Bank-Debt-Currency-Pyramid-Scheme from collapsing.
Macron is simply doing his Masters' will, to create conditions where exponentially larger loans are possible in World War.
Bank Debt as currency on par with, rather than discounted from, commodity currency requires each subsequent tranche of debt to be exponentially larger than the previous, else too little currency exists to retire the previous tranche.
Allowing this system to be legal tender via State Sponsored Monopoly as Legal Tender transforms nations into Plantations with Plantation Chattel Slavery at their core.
As with all Chattel Slavery Plantations, when they've used up the Chattel, then they seek to dispose of them as quickly as possible, and import new Chattel Slaves.
The War European Leaders want is for disposing of the European population.
"Immigration" is for replacing the Europeans with new Chattel Slaves.
Macron conspires for the French to have someone new to surrender to.
Of the land of Bankster Dominion I can say this: Never in human history have so few so selfishly plotted the murder of so many in order to avoid admitting their own bankruptcy.
Bankster Ponzi-Rats looking for a few hundred million people to sacrifice to avoid having to admit they are bankrupt.
If Europe wants this war of choice, then the USA should depart NATO and let them.
A recent conversation I had with a young adult highlights the problems with the green ideology.
She asserted that temperatures were too hot.
I replied with the question, "How hot is too hot? And how cool is not hot enough?"
She had no answer because she had no objective standards or data.
Her position on carbon dioxide was identical. Carbon dioxide, she said, is too high.
I replied with a question, " how high is too high? And what level is too low? What are your standards?"
She had no answer. When pressed on both of these issues she fell back on the illusion of popular consensus. However , consensus and science have nothing to do with one another.
The very concept that consensus has anything to do with science is an appeal to authority , which is a logical fallacy. Authority is not science. A persistent failure to disprove a hypothesis is science.
The entire argument about the climate is one of relative levels. And that argument entirely lacks any grounding in any specific level that is logical or objective.
It is an entirely subjective standard which asserts the temperatures are too high because they are the highest since the pleistocene. Let us grant that most people have no idea when the pleistocene began or ended or what its temperatures were or how they related to any other period of times temperatures.
So let's set the record straight. The pleistocene was an ice age.
We are saying that temperatures are too high and C02 too high, because they are higher than the levels of those same things were during an ice age.
Moreover, that ice age never ended. We are still in it.
Our current period of time is called the holocene. It differs from the pleistocene only because it's the period when we thought that human civilization began.
In fact , humans existed for the entirety of the pleistocene and holocene.
Both of these epochs are contained within the quaternary.
The quaternary has lasted since two and a half million years ago and continues today.
The quaternary is an ice age.
Humans have existed for significant portions of the quaternary. And hominids , very similar to humans , existed at least a million years before the quaternary.
Before the quaternary temperatures were very much higher than they are today. There were redwood trees growing in the arctic circle before the quaternary. They are still there buried in the soil. The implication is that the climate there was similar to california.
The north pole , having a climate similar to california is a lot warmer than today.
Alternatively, an objective standard for temperatures and C02 would be their effects on living things. C02 primarily affects plant growth.
Today , C02 is about 420 ppm. Plants prefer 1200 p p m, because that was the prevailing c 02 level when plants evolved and over the last three hundred million years.
Conversely the prevailing C02 levels during the pleistocene ice age, which Greenists , so desperately wish to return to, varied from 180 ppm to 225ppm.
The C02 level referred to as quote "the death of plants" occurs at between 150 ppm and 180 ppm, depending upon species.
Below these levels photosynthesis is impossible. Below these levels , all plants , all plankton , and all the animals who eat those plants and so on die.
Therefore , the Greenists are actually advocating a c 02 level that is fatal to all living things on earth.
And this has happened before.
Immediately before the dinosaurs there was a period of cold known as the late paleozoic ice house. It is remarkable because before that period life on earth was dominated by life forms totally unrelated to the dominant life forms today. They were invertebrates like Trilobites.
They all died.
It appears that the greenists wish to repeat that episode.
I would submit that we can objectively say that one hundred and eighty parts per million CO2 is too low.
I would suggest that greenhouses indicate that 1200 ppm CO2 is adequate.
"Too high" is something that is much greater than 1200 ppm.
1200ppm is associated with non-ice-age temperatures much higher than today. 180ppm is associated with much lower temperatures.
Those are objective standards relating to the continued existence of Life on Earth.
Because whatever the Greenist's concerns are, they are unconcerned about life on earth.
Censorship is the predicate to gas chambers because there is no need to silence the complaints of people you do not intend to brutalize and murder.
The Western Left have become Treasonous Totalitarian pawns of the CCP.
The judge has ruled on probable cause for fictitious complainants pursuant to events no one can prove ever happened anywhere to anyone.
The first requirement for the Judiciary is a for there to exist a controversy brought by a complainant. The Judiciary commits felonies when they roam seeking to create cases to judge.
The second requirement before a judge may render Judgement is that plaintiffs must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions from which the controversy arose actually happened, habeus corpus, and that the accused is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the person who committed that action.
It is ironic that a supposed judge will take a case where no specific plaintiffs exist, and name no specific action as cause for the case but only broad generalizations, and cannot even prove that ANY of those generalizations happened anywhere in the country, much less DC, and lacking a specific crime to complain of, or victim to whom it might have happened then demands that the Congress surrender its lawmakers authority to create the INA and that the Executive Branch surrender their Law Enforcement Authority over the INA - Neither demand authorized under any constitution or law anywhere in the country under any contingency whatsoever - on the basis that the government lacked probable cause to do the thing that no one can prove happened to the individual that no one can name, presuming the government to be guilty of the unspecified crime towards the unspecified person.
So let's see....Judge Howell here just nullified:
If there is no verifiable complainant with an individual verifiable name who can prove that 'something' happened to them, that the something was illegal, and that the person or agency accused did that something factually DID do it - then there are NONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS LEVIED UPON ARTICLE 3 COURTS TO HEAR THE ISSUE MUCH LESS RULE ON THEM.
The Constitution cannot coexist with the landslide of unsupported assertions and power-grabs made by the inferior Courts of the judiciary.
AND THAT IS THE REAL POINT.
THEY ARE AT WAR WITH THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE BEHEST OF HOSTILE FOREIGN POWERS, SPECIFICALLY CUBA, VENEZUELA, CHINA, AND DARE I say it ... apparently Great Britain, as well as a collection of drug cartels.
Thats who these judges extra curricular funds and perks come from.
That is who funds their "Judicial Fellowships".
If you look at the NGOs who fund them on their Form 990's on Pro-Publica you will find they are funded by foundations, that those funds find their way to these judges bank accounts and those of their close relations.
The Foundations who fund the NGOs also file Form 990s.
If you then look you will see that the Foundations are funded by foreign registered Foundations.
And if you access the foreign records of the foreign Foundations it tells you in black and white why this is happening.
THEY ARE TRAITORS. THEY SOLD US OUT FOR FOREIGN MONEY.
(Full disclosure, the UK part is both funding and propaganda closely connected with the UK government and the Labour Party.)
Cousins...
Get the fuck off my lawn.
Held without charges, evidence, trial, or jury, and given cruel and unusual (actually unprecedented) treatment in violation of Article 3, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments?
You expect what?
Those are the core basis of the Authorization for there to exist such a thing as a Federal Government.
Not just you, but your whole region, and every individual who participated in this crime against humanity need to be sent to explain yourselces to your maker immediately.
Sue the government in a government court, run by the government, in hopes they will pay you government money rather than jail you, or simply execute you summarily?
You have serious sanity issues.
A government that will hold you for years without trial, jury, or charges, when all of the above was illegal for them to do, is a government that will find it easier to murder you than to talk to you.
If they crossed those lines (which they absolutely beyond question have), why would they ever cross back without a gun to their heads???????????
Sues the government in a government court?
Where's the punch line?
The guy is literally saying, "Thank you, Sir! I'd like another few years in your hell hole without charges, trial, evidence, or jury!"
You never, ever ask an abuser to abuse you less.
Doing that implicitly concedes that they may abuse you if they choose.
Boasberg works for foreign nations and their drug cartels. He is a traitor at war with the United States who has declared himself supreme over at least two of the three branches of government.
If such as he cannot be removed from within the system soon, then the system has terminally failed and must be wholly replaced, and its guardians slaughtered. This can end in three ways: Return to accountability and Rule of Law, a slaughterhouse where the losers are exterminated like the Demons they are in a civil war, or a general extinction of life.
The first is the least messy, and the one I advocate for. But it is unlikely that people who live for, "Me First" and "Apres Moi, Le Deluge" are capable, much less willing to surrender any part of their Powers or wealth stolen under the auspices of government.
Very well. Then it will be to the Death, most likely. One way or the other.
The time for negotiating with vermin is coming to a close.
Excuse me, Mr President, but given that the administration is incapable even of prosecuting obvious breaches of Law that were recorded on video, such as Comey's, doesn't it stretch the imagination beyond breaking to say they will be able to void all these policies, documents, and prosecute these felons?
There is no such place as Scotland anymore.
The Scots are extinct.
There is only Al Skutlundia.
I am struck by the comparative elegance of the drug adoption system before the FDA.
Drug efficacy was then tried first by the terminally ill desperate for any path to survival, the terminally naive, and the terminally stupid.
By the time they finished voluntarily trials, the efficacy would be known. If the drug was dangerous then it would rapidly kill all three groups, the elimination of the latter two of which was both voluntary, and net beneficial: those incapable of survival voluntarily dedicated their incapacity to the betterment of humanity.
Alternatively, if the drug worked, then the terminally ill would recover, which was a net gain to society, while the other two would find other methods to voluntarily kill themselves. Net-Net a benefit.
Under a regulatory regime we spend 12% of GDP to force companies to spend 30% their GDP to go through an obstacle course where the very people made destitute by the regulatory costs volunteer to be lab rats. We let the terminally ill die while testing is ongoing. The terminally naive and terminally stupid vote for more regulation before killing themselves anyway with fentanyl.
Meaning that everyone who died under the previous system still dies, but now we throw 12% of GDP plus millions of formerly self-supporting citizens impoverished by the spending into a fire so we can congratulate ourselves...
Know what?
Humans are stupid.
"Indemnity" is a way for government to cast democide as incompetence.
So...your claim is that scarcity is "Capitalist".
Your claim is that "supply and demand" pricing depend on Capitalism to operate?
Do you know anything about the Soviet Union or China at all??
Serious question.
Nothing in this universe can change supply-demand pricing. Because the cause of it is The Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that NOTHING CAN CHANGE STATES WITHOUT ENERGY INPUT...
...ergo Nothing can EVER be free. Ergo...supply and demand result from physics applied to the needs of living things.
Will you next tell me that gravity is a capitalist construct?
True.
But which part of US Law gives any government anywhere the authority to prosecute people for harms they have not yet committed (and might never commit)... a.k.a. "Regulation".
While its benefits vs a tort litigation system are theoretical, the costs of regulation are known.
The primary costs of the regulatory State are between 7% and 12% of gdp annually...
So it costs everyone between $2.2 and $3.7 TRILLION annually.
That is larger than Federal deficits.
AND
Those are just the direct costs.
The indirect compliance costs are a multiple of that.
And the opportunity costs related to the artificial constraints are an order of magnitude larger.