more NWO ...

  .. the c-word ...

    .. our sorry state

Warning: some say that 'one can find anything on the internet,' which is probably both deeply and mysteriously true. But if so, then anyone finding this comment might be better advised just to leave it where it is ...

[Updated 1 & 2]


G'day orana gelar,

apologies neither sought nor needed, 'NWO' is in any case a 'slippery' name/concept; whether justifiably or not, it hovers on the border of tin-foil hat territory. But it's an advantage of our _libre that we set no strictures (apart from reserving the right to boot inconsequentials and/or lying trolls straight *OUT*!) Also, if you peruse the wiki, you'll see some interesting words, like c-theory and 'cabal.' Add that to your BIS comments; delicious!

I'm supposing your NWO remark could have been inspired by this from Ahmadinejad's site:

  «The Iranian president also called for change in the monetary and financial system of the world.
It was among the grave responsibilities of intellectuals, scientists and officials of the world to play their historical role at this sensitive juncture, he said.»
[from the official site]

Caveat: I agree with orana gelar's "to be clear," we do not need, nor will we, posit any shadowy, cryptocratic or totalitarian anything; what we can actually see (via the net, forgetting the corrupt and venal MSM for the moment) is perfectly bad enough. In any case, there will always be (failing a shuddering quantum-collapse into a single theory of everything(??!)) - there will always be rival theories, for example perhaps one of the simplest (i.e. KISS): birds-of-a-feather. However, there are some details that we cannot (are not allowed to) see - for obvious (and undemocratic) reasons; some details are discussed 'behind closed doors,' the perfect (actually of course the worst) recent example possibly being the agreement(s) made between B, B & H over Iraq (illegal invasion thereof, morphed into brutal occupation; murder for oil. Recall: 'Pre-deployment.') We know (now!) that, for example, 'the intel was being fixed around the policy.' At this point, one could examine the formal definition of conspiracy[1]. To end this caveat, all that follows might be better prefaced by "with all due respect" and the conditional "IF - THEN ..."

The scene: I posed the (quasi-rhetorical) question, Q: "What's new about this purported/dreaded NWO?" A possible A: "Not much." I usually like to start with what might be the worst war crime (possibly for all time - if we're lucky), and I'm referring to the double-A-bombing of Japan. Contrary to what they assert (say one thing, do another), IF the A-bombing was needed at all THEN it was needed *only* for a) they'd spent the dough and/therefore b) they could, and c) the true *main reason*, they wanted to send the Russkies a signal: "See what we can do - Ooops! Did." 1945+ 100s of 1000s mostly innocent Japs dead. That act set the scene for a lot to follow. A lot more s**tty crimes, that is, recall millions dead in and around 60s-70s Vietnam then refer most recently to 2003+ 100s of 1000s possibly 1.3mio+ mostly innocent Iraqis dead. This time, I'd like start back at WW1.

The plot:

In general, "Truth, justice and the American way."

Back to WW1 - "To make the world safe for democracy."

Skip to GWBush, "They hate us for our freedoms," "We will bring [xxx] to justice."

Comment: All filthy, propagandistic lies. Recall my discussions of Bernays and propaganda; the 'developing' of PR (primarily propaganda merely 're-branded' - then extended), the developments grouped under the rubric of 'manufacture of demand/consent.' Bernays went to France with Wilson; see propagandistic WW1 slogan above. Bernays-type developments have culminated in today's sheople; notionally worshipped as electors (who always get it right!) - but psychologically manipulated into impotence - and then insulted by the perverse almost-no-choice ugly-twin two-(identical!)-party system of (lying!) candidates - who when elected deliberately fail (miserably!) to properly represent. Lot of big trouble there - if the sheople ever wake up.

Next, Ahmadinejad's monetary and financial system musings; what we have is so-called $US-hegemony, critical time-points being Bretton Woods 1944 exchange-rate fixing then Nixon's 71 'default' and subsequent 'de-golding' of the $US with gold being effectively replaced by - ta ra! Oil. The early 70s oil-shocks followed (those miserable oil-producing countries attempting to get a fairer price - as well as sticking it to a few 'deserving' infidels (there is an alternative explanation; looking ... something to do with Kissinger? Rockefeller? [Update 2: Engdahl/The Fake Oil Crisis of 1973])), oil-price rises adding to pretty-well world-wide inflation partly/mainly caused by the US trying to have both guns and butter (by, another ta ra! - printing $s). Naturally enough, Whitlam was (locally) blamed (I'll return to good old Gough in good time). Suffice it to say that no discussion is needed vis-à-vis Whitlam, Hawke/Keating or now Rudd, nor Fraser, Howard & Costello[2]. Stooges all (excepting Gough), Aus is just too small a financial fish and world (US) effects dominate, and politics (after Gough) is a cruel charade. Skipping the various financial imbroglios until 2008, we (world) are now deep in the (mainly US) financial poo; parallels are already being made with 1929 - and it'll probably get (far!) worse. One thing the US is up to once again is - yet another ta ra! - printing $s!!?

A word on banks/banksters; what a wicked racket. All (fiat) money is created - printed(!!?) - but not on 'real' paper; once a 'mere' journal entry, now done electronically - at the stroke of a computer-key. The primary money 'creators' are the so-called 'central' banks(s), here more or less shadowy, some (quasi)independent (as allegedly in Aus) and some outright private (US, misleadingly named 'the Fed'), and one possibly out of all control (BIS.) After the central banks come the 'trading' banks; they 'need' a certain amount of 'own' capital, which they use as 'deposit' to *borrow* (at interest) from the central bank(s) and may then proceed to loan out (again at interest) some factor *more* to the 'outside' world. The factor is the 'fraction' in 'fractional reserve banking,' the name given to the swindle.

To invent an example not too far from reality, let us assign 1/10 = 10% to the fraction and interest rate both, and see what happens: some central bank 'creates' a squillion. The 'trading' banks come along and borrow the squillion, but due to fractional reserve banking, only after they have raised 1/10th of a squillion first as their 'deposit,' usually shareholders' dough. (Which - naturally enough - the shareholders have probably borrowed. Don't be alarmed! Also, one presumes, they are required to post a hefty deposit to hinder the hoi-polloi from getting in on the (wicked) action.) I could have it slightly wrong here; it could be that the trading banks have to raise a whole squillion - as opposed to 1/10th, but it's a (relatively) unimportant detail, as we will now see.

Having borrowed the central bank's squillion (or used their 'deposit' dough to purchase bonds from the central bank - again, detail here is not critically important); then a) the trading banks have to pay the central bank interest, 1/10th = 10% per year. But, and it's a VERY BIG BUT, b) the trading banks may now proceed to loan out 10 * a squillion, themselves also charging 10% interest from the borrowers, i.e. getting a squillion back in interest from the outside world, obviously now indebted by 10 squillion. The trading banks pay 1/10 = 10% on the 'reserve-squillion' to the central bank, so the central bank pockets 1/10th of a squillion (for a single stroke of a computer-key!) - and the trading banks pocket the remaining 9/10ths of a squillion interest raised. By multiplying the primary creators' loans by the reserve fraction, the trading banks are 'secondary' money creators. See what I mean by a wicked racket? (Q: How do I get in? A: Start by raising a squillion...)

The above system, racket though it undoubtedly is, is supposed to be run responsibly, with the accent heavily on *responsibly* (infinite-loop at this point); to avoid, say, printing too much dough - and therefore causing inflation. One might think that it would be a pretty easy task to do this; if nothing else, they work out some function that approximates to steady-state, then they fine-tune it as they go. But nooo, the Aus-RBA, say (notionally 'independent'), sets an 'inflation-target' (a 2-3% band, say), then manipulates the system trying to chase after that target. A BIG Q here: why not target 0%? A: Good Q. If it sounds like they have the cart before the horse, it's probably deliberate. But before we move on from this 'bankster-racket,' an even big - bigger - biggest Q: In the name of justice and equity, this interest being gouged out of the economy by banks, seeing as it is demonstrably *money for nothing* (recall the originating single computer-keystroke), should be pocketed exactly by whom??!

Two things have gone (desperately!) wrong; the first and most obvious, is the (cynical!) deliberate over-printing, by successive US-Fed regimes, to the extent, previously noted, of provoking/supporting asset-price bubbles. Which are now popping, or threatening to pop, but whatever; the system, world-wide, appears to be crashing. As if that wasn't bad enough, the main proposed 'solution' being implemented, 1st by the GWBush regime and now continued by Obama's, is to throw ever more money at the very same people (i.e. the wicked banksters) who created the problem in the 1st place. These (sad) days, they (whoever the hell 'they' are) separate the world into 'real' economy and 'finance;' the actual terminology sending us a v.loud message. Seems to me, that the real economy (making/selling 'stuff') has itself been stuffed - the sheople almost everywhere having had their purchasing power neo-liberalled down to, if not below, unsustainable minimums, whilst at the same time their savings (shares crashing -50%) and housing ('merely' doubled+ (Aus[2]) or crashing (US)) have been turned into desert-dust.

The second thing going (desperately!) wrong, is perhaps (approaching infinitely!) worse. In a word: derivatives, aka financial finagling. One such derivative-type is MBS (mortgage backed securities); housing (plus other) mortgages, 100s or 1000s thrown into one pot then sliced-up & resold at fabulous (promised *potential*) profits (don't ask me "Based on what?" - except possibly to lure the greedy) - but then the underlying house-prices (US) are crashing, turning such derivatives 'toxic.' That's one 'flavour' of derivatives, there are many, going quickly über-complex (hence the expression: "Masters of the (financial) universe(!!?)") Now for some (v.rough) figures, and no sources quoted. From my (dim) recall, the US GDP is about 15Trio (very rounded), and the world's GDP is about 60Trio. The amount of (fiat) money floating around is related to GDP by some factor like 'the velocity of money' (which can be looked up in any case; me not wanting to get too complicated here. Update 1: I've done some checking. US M2 at 2007 was in the region of $US7.5trio; if the world is 3* the US then world M2 could be 30Trio). The total derivatives may be in the region of 600Trio(!!?) - and if so, that's possibly why, if as alleged by the Brown article, the BIS set out to strangle the US and (as 'collateral damage') the world economy; the 'derivatives scam' has acted as a 'tertiary' source of money creation, multiplying the central banks' squillion, already multiplied by the trading banks' 10* factor, then up by another 20* factor(more !!?) - and *all* that (fiat!) money is a) indistinguishable and b) based on a big, fat zero in the first place - that good old original single computer-keystroke.

Or something like that; de-regulation, dismantling the measures set up after the great crash/depression which started in 1929, leading to possibly an even greater crash now. How clever, those de-regulators, and the masters of the financial universe both!

That was all money; before we 'move on' from $s, two other not-so-slight things: the fact that oil is denominated in, bought & sold in $US has enormous significance; and is (sadly!) only one of multiple ways the US gives itself a free lunch. Take Germany, say; it needs oil - just like most non-oil producers. To buy oil, they need $US, and so they make a few Mercedes, say (Porsches too, better but a bit more X-y), and then they flog 'em off to any Yanks not yet owning fat 4WD/SUVs, or in any case not yet owning enough cars (where enough is obviously never enough). But ooops! Make Mercedes; sell. Buy oil; burn. Out of oil; bummer! Loop back to make Mercedes... The other 'nice' trick is US external-deficit spending; exporting countries end up piling up otherwise useless, valueless fiat dollars. All they can really do with them - and this is from real-world observation, remember, is to buy US bonds i.e. actually finance the US external-deficit, or buy US arms, even more useless and wasteful (except for the Zionists, who get given the latest US killing technology - which they then use on mostly totally innocent Palestinians. See Gaza, 2008/9. See Lebanon, 2006. See Palestine slowly being stolen piece by piece, 1948 to present; almost continual mass-murder to enable theft, pillage, looting, plunder and rapine.)


Rackets upon rackets, we could look at resources, but I'm again running out of time and puff. Suffice it to say, that "buy low, sell high" has been taken to the furthest possible extreme, but that's not new. I read the other day that before nationalising its oil, Iraq was getting as little as 5% of the take. No sources, no time. Keyword: resource-rent. Keywords: Kennan, Memo PPS23, "... going to have to deal in straight power concepts..." - another suffice it to say, the US with 5% of world's population, now consuming about 25% of world's resources. Note that the oil-nationalisation by Iraq has now been countered; Iraq's 'patrimony' is now once again fully exposed to US depredation - what a surprise!

Major effect: sovereign resource-owners are being horribly ripped-off.

Some 'proof:' Perkins' "Economic Hit Man." I read a criticism recently; said the latter part of the book was borderline believable. Not pertinent, IMHO. A quote of a quote of a quote:

  «Perkins' summary of how US imperialism escalates its responses is excellent. Starting with the urbane "hitman" – "iron fist in the velvet glove" - followed by the "jackals" who do the murdering and black ops (when persuasion and sweet reason have failed); and the finale (only when the jackals cannot kill their targets etc as with Noreiga in Panama and Saddam in Iraq) – sending in the military to kill and maim everyone in sight.» 
[you can find it if you wish]

Perkins leads straight into / is meshed with the 'Washington consensus,' WB/IMF 'conditionalities' and compliments pug-ugly neo-liberalism, so-called 'free market' everything, privatisations, union-busting, down-sizing, out-sourcing, cutting if not eliminating social services; any/all other components of globalisation that, they promised, would 'lift all boats' (say one thing, do another) - but basically depressed the whole world to benefit of the becoming universally, irresistibly detestable US. (Another phew! How many laps to go? OK; MSM and political/democracy.)


MSM: Yeah yeah; privately-owned have long-since abrogated their 4th Estate responsibilities, corrupt and venal. The publicly-financed broadcasters are supposed to be honest and unbiased and certainly supposed to work for us and not against us; but now the final 'proof,' (as if any more were needed), and better than the implied Perkins' proof because we can see/hear it for ourselves, directly and 1st hand from our radios and TVs: before, during and after Ahmadinejad's speech, those publicly-financed broadcasters that I could witness outright lied. One odd thing - or perhaps not really so odd at all; when someone lies - especially as badly as vis-à-vis Ahmadinejad - then their credibility goes all the way down the tor-let. In the banking collapse, they've been talking about how to regain lost trust. Interesting to see if such is even remotely possible: so let's see you show us how, eh Aunty AusBC?


Politics/democracy: been there, done that; but to loop through some of it briefly, a properly functioning democracy needs at least these three prerequisites; an involved and educated electorate - not a dumbed-down and misled one, a fair and varied choice of honest candidates - not lying sell-outs, full and accurate info-flows, not MSM-lies piled on top of politician-lies. The psychological manipulation of the electorate is especially objectionable, and is one absolute proof that our so-called 'democracies' simply aren't.


Fazit: Almost nothing is as it's supposed to be, or as they assert it is. In the 1st instance, we, the so-called 'democratic' sheople are supposed to be sovereign; we're bloody-well not, not allowed to be. The psychological manipulation means that even if well enough informed, the sheople can't be trusted (by those wicked manipulators) to vote the 'right' way - whatever that may be (see the recent properly free vote in Gaza; obviously voters chose the 'wrong' candidates - going on the external tantrums that ensued.) But the sheople are not fully and honestly informed, to the contrary. The economy is a shambles; 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' has been brutally suppressed, contradicted, abandoned and ruthlessly violated. Add your own negatives. In a nutshell, The Enlightenment may well have not happened. Ahmadinejad gets a lot right, his: «the grave responsibilities of intellectuals, scientists and officials» addresses those who have dropped the ball, have abrogated their responsibilities, abandoned not just morality but even humanity. I posed another question Q: Why? Why do criminals predominate? One suggested A: Plato's Allegory of the Cave didn't help me - sorry, perhaps I'm too tired or too impatient to extract the significance. Then, as to NWO, regardless of new or old, what we see is mostly disorder; although people are organising all over the place - the example of Kennan has been quoted; 'the planners' is a pervasive feature, not of some trumped-up totalitarian distraction, but *primarily* in the US - the Pentagon, RAND, think-tanks of every stripe. But, and it's an AMAZINGLY BIG BUT: they seem only to create more (greedy & selfish!) chaos, rather than any (egalitarian) order. Here's a good place to ask "Why?" - and who, as in how is this value for money?

I end with a final question Q: Where are the responsibles, where are the adults?


PS I mentioned I'd return to Gough - but I'm out of time. Nevertheless, it's important. Thesis: that Gough was the (arguable) greatest - and (sadly) the last. IMHO, Gough was a genuine and positive reformer, but was basically crippled by not enough time (how ironic, given "It's time!") And, he ran headlong into the CIA. I don't make this stuff up; decide for yourself, here are some (middling) videos:

Whitlam Dismissal and the CIA.

Whitlam Dismissal and the CIA. Part 2

The conclusion of the person who supplied me with those links is the same as mine i.e. I agree with him; and recall "IF - THEN ..." The democratic outlook for Aus is not just grim but hopeless (failing a revolution). If Gough has any remaining major legacy it'd have to be Medicare (nee the original Medibank); it'd be nice (Oh, fabulous day!) if that were to be fully restored/extended to the original vision, i.e. single (wise!) provider. Always worth a repeat: encourage medicine for profit (neo-liberal style), and you'll get mostly profit - and a lot of poor and v.sad (dead?) patients. About the best one could say is that they can't afford to let too many get too poor (or die, but everyone does that eventually) - but having said that, it is immediately contradicted by the current (financial) crisis; that's *exactly* what they have done, i.e. let too many get too poor - they (the US) actually, consciously drove a great many of their own people into penury. IMHO, they might have done it 'just' to spite Marx - but ended up cutting off their own nose instead.

To reinforce the point (yet another loop): the only way that they can possibly restore the 'real' economy (seems to me), is to restore enough demand = disposable income, to - ta ra! the sheople. But, and it could be an insurmountable but: they can only restore that disposable income by reversing the perhaps 30+ years' concentrated effort that they have applied directly *against* those sheople. That's a so-called 'hard' loop, normally 'impossible' to break; since (in this case) to break out of it, they'd have to *admit* that they got it wrong, at least 30 if not more looong years wrong - like, totally!!?


Epilogue: "User pays," like most if not all of the neo-liberal bulls**t, is for the birds. You can exploit/depress the lower/middle-income bracket only up to a certain point - beyond which there's no more blood or treasure to be squeezed. The neo-liberals have spent 30+ years polishing-up their meanness, whilst every person with any sensitivity has been shrieking exactly that: "MEAN BASTARDS!" - it's just gotta stop. There are a couple of problems. As 'Blind Freddy' can see, the rich getting richer is one thing, and the other in this case is that this automatically makes the poor ever poorer (nothing much new here) - but, until the limiting case is reached, like now, when far too many have been exhausted to the point of not spending. The eventual result of that (crashing demand) - is economic collapse; as we are now seeing (as long foreseen by Marx & others). Just as medicine-for-profit switches the focus from health to profit, encouraging greed leads to ever more greed, with the other side of that being an insensitivity to the normal sheople - not 'dole-bludgers' mind you, merely those without the ghastly killer(greed) modus operandi



[1] conspiracy n. (pl. -ies) 1 secret plan to commit a crime; plot. 2 conspiring. [Latin: related to *conspire] [POD]

conspiracy of silence n. agreement to say nothing. [ibid.]

conspirator n. person who takes part in a conspiracy.  conspiratorial adj. [ibid.]

[2] Costello is what amounts to a cruel joke. Celebrated by the Libs and MSM both as some sort of financial genius, his most noteworthy achievement (not what he said, but what he did), was adding the final functionality (halving the CGT) that enabled Aus house-prices to form a more than double-bubble. Costello still hangs around like a bad smell. The next cruel joke would be to let him back in, to become a candidate for the position of our fearless (clueless, gutless, do-nothing etc.) leader. Arrgh - but essentially impotent anyway - given the current state of the NWdisO.


  1. Wow! For now just this: Thank you. Thank you, IDH for taking the time to write this article.

    I'll comment again later, after I've ruminated on what you've written for our benefit.

    Thanks, mate.

  2. In a nutshell: Plato's Allegory of the Cave suggests that the deep truths of life (the "why" to all things) cannot be explained through mutual communication.

    One who gets outside the dark cave can go back in and speak 'the truth' (i.e. report what is seen outside the cave) to those still shackled within it, but they cannot ever comprehend what is said for they have no concepts with which to get their head around what's communicated to them.

    In other (your) words: In a nutshell, The Enlightenment may well have not happened.

  3. I'm not certain as yet, but sense it might be useful to look closer at Immanuel Wallerstein's writings on a world-systems analysis/approach.

  4. 3 in a row ...

    Wallerstein saying something to consider:

    "My analysis of the modern world-system argues that we are in a structural crisis, that the system is in fact unable to survive, and that the world is in a chaotic situation, which we will be in for twenty to forty years to come. This crisis has to do with the lack of sufficient surplus-value available and thus with the possible profit one can make. The system is bifurcating – referring to a situation in which there are two alternative ways of getting out of the present crisis in order to create a new, stable, world-system.

    The most important current struggle is that between the two hypothetical alternative routes the world will actually choose. It’s very difficult to define very narrowly these two directions, but basically there will be people trying to create a new world-system which will replicate certain basic features of the existing system but not be a capitalist system. It would still be hierarchical and exploitative. The other direction would be to create an alternative system that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian. These are all very vague terms because one can’t define in advance the structural details of such a future world-system. But obviously one solution would be from my point of view a better world-system, and the other would be at least as bad as or perhaps worse than the world-system we presently have. So it’s a real political struggle.

  5. Recall "IF - THEN ..."

    Thanks for the illustration of the allegory.

    We could posit the sheople as having been partly lured into a cave called 'TV-induced coma,' but as well as partly lured, they actually sought such a place out.

    As for any explanation lacking a language, they (the sheople) were told "It's too complicated," (alternatively "It is not simple," but in a friendly way); so "You can (safely!) leave it to us," and finally "Just enjoy yourselves!"

    There are, of course, complicated things, some deliberately hidden things, and others that sheople both want and do not want to hear.

    The place that we have arrived at (not the sheople's cave, but the current, crashing reality) - here a charmer: by "more arse than class," was foreseen/forecast by some, poo-poo-ed by many - the inevitability was pretty-well built in; the beneficiaries thinking that they were on a 'hot one,' and the devil take the hindmost. As Ern would possibly say, those doing the taking, those hitching a ride on the take, and even some evil/idle commentators possibly not actually taking any active part of the scams would likely have said "I'm inboard" or "Pull the ladder up!"

    Q: Why "more arse than class?" A: The masters of the financial universe never dreamed that they were in for such a fall, obviously either never saw the train that skittled their little party - or, if they saw it coming, couldn't, didn't know how, to get out of its way.

    In the "It is not simple" frame, I think there're at least two main things going wrong, as in the headline; a) the collapsing demand and separately b) the crashing 'derivatives' mess.

    The demand appears to have switched itself quite suddenly off - and may be capable of being revived; they're certainly working on that ("The ecodomy [sic] is basically sound!") If the derivatives mess is under concerted, *constructive* attack, it too, may be cleaned up. Some may know more; we too - in time

    As for Wallerstein's bifurcating way out, I think he's possibly a bit too optimistic in suggesting that a 'good & proper' solution (i.e. «relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian») is possible - given the apparently deeply corrupt 'managers' actually running the show - no c-theory needed, wanted or suggested; there certainly are some people, somehow organised (even if just birds-of-a-feather) but whoever and however, to be so depraved, for so long, would suggest that they'll be extremely hard to shift...

  6. It's been pointed out to me that there are at least *three* legs to the current financial crash - and it's true; in addition to the collapse in demand (the poor driven into penury, etc.), the financial finagling (derivatives, etc.), there is the utterly irresponsible over-profligate $-printing. Well, the last is emphasised in the headline article, but certainly needs to be included in any quick summary. Greenspan has openly admitted some error - but as usual and in any case "Sorry doesn't help much."

  7. 1, 2, 3 ...

      .. classics!

    1. Listen closely, I plan to say this only once.

    2. Caveat: I'm no-one's financial advisor, excepting my own perhaps, but IF ... THEN; only in conference.

    3. War - ning; separated, so that it doesn't google (and for a bit of a giggle); bad things may be 'coming down the pike' (detested Ameri-speak; spit!)


    There's an odd article in the (virtual) newspaper this morning, from Arthur or Martha (Colebatch or Davidson) is not at all clear.

    It's all classics - in the Keynesian sense. Some may recall "savings = investment" and "deficit spending" - all such stuff derided into history - or so the neo-liberals attempted.

    Nooo, Keynes is roaring back - a bit like an express-train, similar to, if not exactly that same one as, the one that skittled the so-called 'masters of the financial universe.'

    One hears it every day, the idiotic-sounding 'pumping' of money into the economy; everyone and his dog trying to 'jump-start' spending.

    All the time, most of the sheople have the s**ts and have stopped spending, and those who don't yet have the s**ts probably are either just too thick to 'get it' - or, they may be incurable optimists; what do I know?

    Well, this: if savings *don't*, *can't* equal investments (because the s**ts-sheople insist on paying off their debts, say), then Q: Where will the money come from? A: The p-word - look in the article.

    Now, as in my headline, there are 'down-sides' (more detested Ameri-speak; more spit!) - to the p-word, namely the i-word.

    Well ta ra! Both the p-word and the i-word are in that article, the 1st as a possible (perhaps the only) way out, and the i-word is said to be 'not a problem.' 

    This tells me that that may be *exactly* what's being planned. Hence my war - ning, any 'spare' cash might be better off being converted into some hardy, *non-depreciable* store of value. (As the The Mogambo Guru keeps suggesting, but Q: What does s/he know? A: Probably a bit more than me, but a good-better-best source may Liu, same website.)


    One more thing to add. This is another classic ploy; recall my above Q: Why not aim for 0%? A: Because inflation is deliberately caused - by the US, say, since that's another of their so-called 'free-lunch' strategies; they borrow money (from innocent sheople any and everywhere, say) - then allow inflation to reduce the cost of paying off the debt.

    In other words, *yet another* (filthy!) rip-off.

  8. There is no silver bullet ...

    Sub: ... when the family silver is gone.

    Alt: Every silver lining has a cloud ...

    Check out this handy chart and consider what might happen when we've got nine years of silver left to make stuff with.

  9. the ecodomy is basically sound ...

      .. and other such deliberate lies ...

        .. no wonder the sheople despair


    (The misspelling of 'ecodomy' is the way McMahon sounded when he said it, pre-'72. It was just as much a lie then as now. Spit!)

    Plus ça change, and recall Howard giving rise to the utterly risible "All politicians lie!" Q: Why? Why is that so? Does it have to be at all? A: They lie, in (futile!) attempts at concealing their (disgusting!) perfidy. It occurred to me whilst observing the so-called 'debates' during the recent US presidential campaign, that the reason for some of the more bizarre 'arguments' was the squirming distortions they needed to make, to try to fit into the (lying, propagandistic) pushed-paradigm. What a silly, twisted and immoral world - the so-called 'leadership' thereof, that is!

    Moving on ...


    This, from the AusBC/justin today:

      «He says the G20 is not optimistic about a recovery in 2010, but says it is not clear when global growth will begin to pick up.» 

    That is outright gobbledygook. IF "he said" THEN why not put *exactly* what he said in quotes? Is that sentence an attempt at an un-attributable way of making the speaker look foolish? What are you up to, Aunty AusBC? Unfortunately, it's an habitual form of distortion practiced by the AusBC; another way they do it is to lead in item with a headline like "Opposition slams government ..." Any publicly financed journalist writing/publishing such rubbish should immediately themselves be slammed - straight into gaol. The AusBC does it all the time, recall the recent anti-Iran tirades - talk about H-speech, with Aunty often leading the charge. Note that one almost never hears (on the AusBC) about a Palestinian unless s/he's 'militant,' or a Muslim unless s/he's 'radical;' all the propagandistic etc.s. Boo! Hiss!

    Now, to more serious stuff; two quotes:

    Apr 24, 2009
    The Treasury's moral black hole
    By Julian Delasantellis

      «Like the old story of the boy who cried wolf one too many times, it seems that even the bureaucrats at Treasury were forced to pay a price for the sins of the foreign policy team of defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2006) and vice president Cheney. They seem to have lied so much that, eventually, no one in the Bush administration was believed when they said much of anything about anything.» 

    My comment: I've said it before; one 'lethal' lie, all credibility gone. When we talk of lethal lies, we find that the lies were both *very* many and *very* lethal, recall A-bombings, (Palestine), Vietnam, School of Assassins, Afghanistan, Iraq; all the bloody etc.s and everything before, during and after - quite a lot to answer for. Who will bring the US (and Israeli) regimes to justice? Why are we waiting?

      «It was time for Paulson's flaming [Götterdämmerung], indeed, what might be the crescendo of the entire enterprise of conservative economic philosophy in the advanced capitalist world. ... The proposal to buy assets was met with substantial criticism from academic economists, with a leading source of skepticism being faculty at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business ...» 

    As usual, one should read the lot. Note: (erring!) academic economists, one of the true scourges of the earth.


    Fazit: The incredible, ignoble lie! Utter contempt.