[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
As alarm bells sound over the advancing destruction of the environment, a variety of Green New Deal proposals have appeared in the U.S. and Europe, along with some interesting academic debates about how to fund them. Monetary policy, normally relegated to obscure academic tomes and bureaucratic meetings behind closed doors, has suddenly taken center stage.
The 14-page proposal for a Green New Deal submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., does not actually mention Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), but that is the approach currently capturing the attention of the media—and taking most of the heat. The concept is good: Abundance can be ours without worrying about taxes or debt, at least until we hit full productive capacity. But, as with most theories, the devil is in the details.
MMT advocates say the government does not need to collect taxes before it spends. It actually creates new money in the process of spending it; and there is plenty of room in the economy for public spending before demand outstrips supply, driving up prices.
Critics, however, insist this is not true. The government is not allowed to spend before it has the money in its account, and the money must come from tax revenues or bond sales.
In a 2013 treatise called “Modern Monetary Theory 101: A Reply to Critics,” MMT academics concede this point. But they write, “These constraints do not change the end result.” And here the argument gets a bit technical. Their reasoning is that “the Fed is the monopoly supplier of CB currency [central bank reserves], Treasury spends by using CB currency, and since the Treasury obtained CB currency by taxing and issuing treasuries, CB currency must be injected before taxes and bond offerings can occur.”
The counterargument, made by American Monetary Institute (AMI) researchers, among others, is that the central bank is not the monopoly supplier of dollars. The vast majority of the dollars circulating in the United States are created, not by the government, but by private banks when they make loans. The Fed accommodates this process by supplying central bank currency (bank reserves) as needed, and this bank-created money can be taxed or borrowed by the Treasury before a single dollar is spent by Congress. The AMI researchers contend, “All bank reserves are originally created by the Fed for banks. Government expenditure merely transfers (previous) bank reserves back to banks.” As the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis puts it, “federal deficits do not require that the Federal Reserve purchase more government securities; therefore, federal deficits, per se, need not lead to increases in bank reserves or the money supply.”
What federal deficits do increase is the federal debt; and while the debt itself can be rolled over from year to year (as it virtually always is), the exponentially growing interest tab is one of those mandatory budget items that taxpayers must pay. Predictions are that in the next decade, interest alone could add $1 trillion to the annual bill, an unsustainable tax burden.
To fund a project as massive as the Green New Deal, we need a mechanism that involves neither raising taxes nor adding to the federal debt; and such a mechanism is proposed in the U.S. Green New Deal itself—a network of public banks. While little discussed in the U.S. media, that alternative is being debated in Europe, where Green New Deal proposals have been on the table since 2008. European economists have had more time to think these initiatives through, and they are less hampered by labels like “socialist” and “capitalist,” which have long been integrated into their multi-party systems.
A Decade of Gestation in Europe
The first Green New Deal proposal was published in 2008 by the New Economics Foundation on behalf of the Green New Deal Group in the U.K. The latest debate is between proponents of the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), led by former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, and French economist Thomas Piketty, author of the best-selling “Capital in the 21st Century.” Piketty recommends funding a European Green New Deal by raising taxes, while Varoufakis favors a system of public green banks.
Belgian students gather to call for urgent measures to combat climate change during a demonstration in Brussels, Belgium, 24 January 2019. According the police more than 35,000 students are taking part in the demonstration.
Thousands of Belgian school children skipped classes on Thursday (24 January) to flood Brussels in an unprecedented protest against global warming and pollution, vowing to miss school once a week until the government takes action.
Students banging drums and carrying signs decrying man-made climate change gathered around the European Parliament.
Police said the 35,000-strong gathering was the biggest turnout of recent times for a student protest in the Belgian capital, which is also home to European Union institutions.
“If we skip every Thursday, if we don’t go to school, the big people in our country and in the world will see that this is a problem,” said high school student Joppe Mathys.
Another student held a sign saying: “Be part of the solution, not the pollution.”
A nine-year-old girl, who gave her name only as Lalla and was with her teacher, said it was time people stopped driving cars and walked and cycled instead.
“Dinosaurs thought they had time too,” read one banner.
Belgian school students feel abandoned by their politicians so they have started a weekly strike for the climate. Their protests pose a major question about how young people are represented in politics ahead of the EU elections in May.
Brussels police spokeswoman Ilse Van de Keere said the student demonstration was the biggest in recent memory.
Broad protests started across Belgium on 2 December with a “Claim the Climate” march, when over 65,000 demonstrators called for Belgian and European leaders to adopt ambitious climate policies in line with goals set by the Paris agreement in 2015. That demonstration came before the COP24 UN climate summit in Poland, where a report was released ranking Belgium 31 out of 60 on the 2019 Climate Change Performance Index, or a “medium” performance in implementing the Paris agreements. Brussels has been regularly ranked as one of the most congested cities in western Europe in recent years due to Belgium’s high population density and large number of commuters.
That is also a mark of shame for a capital where the EU sets European climate policies.
Across the EU, road congestion costs the bloc one percent of its annual economic output, or €100 billion per year, according to the European Commission.
In the run-up to the UN climate conference, which began in Katowice in Poland on 2 December, many thousands of people demonstrated to support accelerating the phasing out of the coal industry. EURACTIV Germany reports.
The “Green New Deal” endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.-N.Y., and more than 40 other House members has been criticized as imposing a too-heavy burden on the rich and upper-middle-class taxpayers who will have to pay for it. However, taxing the rich is not what the Green New Deal resolution proposes. It says funding would come primarily from certain public agencies, including the U.S. Federal Reserve and “a new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks.”
Funding through the Federal Reserve may be controversial, but establishing a national public infrastructure and development bank should be a no-brainer. The real question is why we don’t already have one, as do China, Germany and other countries that are running circles around us in infrastructure development. Many European, Asian and Latin American countries have their own national development banks, as well as belong to bilateral or multinational development institutions that are jointly owned by multiple governments. Unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, which considers itself “independent” of government, national development banks are wholly owned by their governments and carry out public development policies.
China not only has its own China Infrastructure Bank but has established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which counts many Asian and Middle Eastern countries in its membership, including Australia, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia. Both banks are helping to fund China’s trillion-dollar “One Belt One Road” infrastructure initiative. China is so far ahead of the United States in building infrastructure that Dan Slane, a former adviser on President Donald Trump’s transition team, has warned, “If we don’t get our act together very soon, we should all be brushing up on our Mandarin.”
The leader in renewable energy, however, is Germany, called “the world’s first major renewable energy economy.” Germany has a public sector development bank called KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau or “Reconstruction Credit Institute”), which is even larger than the World Bank. Along with Germany’s nonprofit Sparkassen banks, KfW has largely funded the country’s green energy revolution.
Unlike private commercial banks, KfW does not have to focus on maximizing short-term profits for its shareholders while turning a blind eye to external costs, including those imposed on the environment. The bank has been free to support the energy revolution by funding major investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Its fossil fuel investments are close to zero. One of the key features of KfW, as with other development banks, is that much of its lending is driven in a strategic direction determined by the national government. Its key role in the green energy revolution has been played within a public policy framework under Germany’s renewable energy legislation, including policy measures that have made investment in renewables commercially attractive.
KfW is one of the world’s largest development banks, with assets totaling $566.5 billion as of December 2017. Ironically, the initial funding for its capitalization came from the United States, through the Marshall Plan in 1948. Why didn’t we fund a similar bank for ourselves? Simply because powerful Wall Street interests did not want the competition from a government-owned bank that could make below-market loans for infrastructure and development. Major U.S. investors today prefer funding infrastructure through public-private partnerships, in which private partners can reap the profits while losses are imposed on local governments.
KfW and Germany’s Energy Revolution
Renewable energy in Germany is mainly based on wind, solar and biomass. Renewables generated 41 percent of the country’s electricity in 2017, up from just 6 percent in 2000; and public banks provided over 72 percent of the financing for this transition. In 2007-09, KfW funded all of Germany’s investment in Solar Photovoltaic. After that, Solar PV was introduced nationwide on a major scale. This is the sort of catalytic role that development banks can play—kickstarting a major structural transformation by funding and showcasing new technologies and sectors.
KfW is not only one of the biggest financial institutions but has been ranked one of the two safest banks in the world. (The other, Switzerland’s Zurich Cantonal Bank, is also publicly owned.) KfW sports triple-A ratings from all three major rating agencies—Fitch, Standard and Poor’s, and Moody’s. The bank benefits from these top ratings and the statutory guarantee of the German government, which allow it to issue bonds on very favorable terms and therefore to lend on favorable terms, backing its loans with the bonds.
KfW does not work through public-private partnerships, and it does not trade in derivatives and other complex financial products. It relies on traditional lending and grants. The borrower is responsible for loan repayment. Private investors can participate, but not as shareholders or public-private partners. Rather, they can invest in “Green Bonds,” which are as safe and liquid as other government bonds and are prized for their green earmarking. The first “Green Bond—Made by KfW” was issued in 2014 with a volume of $1.7 billion and a maturity of five years. It was the largest Green Bond ever at the time of issuance and generated so much interest that the order book rapidly grew to $3.02 billion, although the bonds paid an annual coupon of only 0.375 percent. By 2017, the issue volume of KfW Green Bonds reached $4.21 billion.
Investors benefit from the high credit and sustainability ratings of KfW, the liquidity of its bonds, and the opportunity to support climate and environmental protection. For large institutional investors with funds that exceed the government deposit insurance limit, Green Bonds are the equivalent of savings accounts—a safe place to park their money that provides a modest interest. Green Bonds also appeal to “socially responsible” investors, who have the assurance with these simple and transparent bonds that their money is going where they want it to. The bonds are financed by KfW from the proceeds of its loans, which are also in high demand due to their low interest rates, which the bank can offer because its high ratings allow it to cheaply mobilize funds from capital markets and its public policy-oriented loans qualify it for targeted subsidies.
Roosevelt’s Development Bank: The Reconstruction Finance Corporation
KfW’s role in implementing government policy parallels that of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) in funding the New Deal in the 1930s. At that time, U.S. banks were bankrupt and incapable of financing the country’s recovery. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to set up a system of 12 public “industrial banks” through the Federal Reserve, but the measure failed. Roosevelt then made an end run around his opponents by using the RFC that had been set up earlier by President Herbert Hoover, expanding it to address the nation’s financing needs.
The RFC Act of 1932 provided the RFC with capital stock of $500 million and the authority to extend credit up to $1.5 billion (subsequently increased several times). With those resources, from 1932 to 1957 the RFC loaned or invested more than $40 billion. As with KfW’s loans, its funding source was the sale of bonds, mostly to the Treasury itself. Proceeds from the loans repaid the bonds, leaving the RFC with a net profit. The RFC financed roads, bridges, dams, post offices, universities, electrical power, mortgages, farms and much more; it funded all of this while generating income for the government.
The RFC was so successful that it became America’s largest corporation and the world’s largest banking organization. Its success, however, may have been its nemesis. Without the emergencies of depression and war, it was a too-powerful competitor of the private banking establishment; and in 1957, it was disbanded under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. That’s how the United States was left without a development bank at the same time Germany and other countries were hitting the ground running with theirs.
Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including “Web of Debt” and “The Public Bank Solution.”
Today some U.S. states have infrastructure and development banks, including California, but their reach is very small. One way they could be expanded to meet state infrastructure needs would be to turn them into depositories for state and municipal revenue. Rather than lending their capital directly in a revolving fund, this would allow them to leverage their capital into 10 times that sum in loans, as all depository banks are able to do, as I’ve previously explained.
The most profitable and efficient way for national and local governments to finance public infrastructure and development is with their own banks, as the impressive track records of KfW and other national development banks have shown. The RFC showed what could be done even by a country that was technically bankrupt, simply by mobilizing its own resources through a publicly owned financial institution. We need to resurrect that public funding engine today, not only to address the national and global crises we are facing now but for the ongoing development the country needs in order to manifest its true potential.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 19 January 2019 06:07.
Jerusalem Post, “U.S. SIGNS ELIE WIESEL GENOCIDE PREVENTION ACT INTO LAW”, 16 Jan 2019:
The law is intended to prevent genocide and other atrocities that threaten national and international security.
Elie Wiesel speaks at a World War II tribute. (photo credit: REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump signed a law on Monday declaring that the prevention of genocide and other atrocities is “a core national security interest” of the United States, adding that it is also “a core moral responsibility.”
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, named for the world-renown Holocaust survivor and famed author, was signed into law by Trump after it passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in December.
The law is intended to prevent genocide and other atrocities “which threaten national and international security, by enhancing United States government capacities to prevent, mitigate, and respond to such crises.”
The new law obligates the US to mitigate threats to its national “security by addressing the root causes of insecurity and violent conflict to prevent the mass slaughter of civilians; conditions that prompt internal displacement and the flow of refugees across borders; and other violence that wreaks havoc on regional stability and livelihoods.”
The US will enhance its capacity to “identify, prevent, address, and respond to the drivers of atrocities and violent conflict” as part of its “humanitarian, development and strategic interests.” It also entails the establishment a Complex Crisis Fund that will deal with strengthening local civil society, such as human rights groups, and nonprofit organizations that are already on the ground, working to thwart and deal with atrocities as they occur.
According to the new law, “Appropriate officials of the US government” must consult at least twice a year with representatives of nongovernmental organizations and civil society actors in an effort to “enhance the capacity of the US” to identify the conditions that could lead to such atrocities, “including strengthening the role of international organizations and international financial institutions in conflict prevention, mitigation and response.”
It also “encourages” the National Intelligence director to give a detailed review of countries and regions at risk of genocide in annual testimony to Congress, “including most likely pathways to violence, specific risk factors, potential perpetrators, and at-risk target groups.”
The secretary of state is also expected to write an evaluation report every three years.
Speaking in December, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ben Cardin said that “America’s strength around the world is rooted in our values.”
“It is in our national interest to ensure that the United States utilizes the full arsenal of diplomatic, economic and legal tools to take meaningful action before atrocities occur,” said Cardin. “Earlier this month, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum identified Burmese military actions against the Rohingya as genocide. From Burma to Iraq, South Sudan to Syria, atrocity crimes tragically persist all around the globe.” He added that the Prevention Act will help ensure that the United States does a better job of responding earlier and more effectively to these heinous crimes. “I urge our House colleagues to pass this landmark legislation before the 115th Congress adjourns.”
Sen. Todd Young, an original co-sponsor of the law and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, explained that the US has a moral and strategic imperative to help prevent and respond to acts of genocide and other mass atrocities, and this legislation would ensure that the US government is better prepared to fulfill this serious responsibility.
Prior to the signing, Sara Bloomfield, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum director, said that “senators Young and Cardin’s leadership on the bill honors Elie Wiesel’s vision for the museum as a living memorial that would help save victims of future genocides and in doing so honor the victims of the Holocaust.
“This legislation is an important effort toward developing a bipartisan congressional blueprint for making ‘never again’ real by taking practical steps to mitigate the systematic persecution of vulnerable groups,” she said.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, 12 January 2019 10:24.
United States Border Patrol at Algodones Sand Dunes, California, USA. The fence on the US-Mexican border is a special construction of narrow, 15 feet tall elements, that are movable vertically. This way they can be lifted on top of the ever shifting sand dunes (image Public Domain, Wikipedia).
Lest there be any misunderstanding, the position here is that the matter of a United States Southern border wall, fence, whatever, as any requirement of border control, is very important.
Border control there is particularly illustrative of a central matter, which is that border control is crucial to the management of populations in human and pervasive ecology; issues which include territorial carrying capacity - hence, at this border, the particular demographic is a secondary matter; salient there is the matter of Mexico’s massive population - Mexico City being among the most overpopulated cities in the world.
Nevertheless, the demographic and rule structure of The United States is already on a disastrous trajectory for Whites, will remain so, even with a wall on the south border.
While border control is essential at any rate, the worst case scenario of its instantiation would be that it will be used to lull complacency of propositional conservatism - “we Americans all being in the same relatively taken-care-of boat” - and further close us in and galvanize us into mulattoization; furthering the trajectory of those who left us susceptible for the Cartesian rule structure of the constitution and to the Jewry which weaponized it against our necessary discrimination both at the border and within the borders.
...galvanizing us with the demographic upshot of this manipulation unfortunately against a population that does have some warrant as native American behind them and which, for their nature, is highly ethnocentric. It is a demographic thus, which has been effective against integration with blacks, against integration with Whites, indifferent to Jewish violin playing; as such, in the most optimistic scenario, could be allied with other Asians and Whites against black power, Jewish supremacism and Islamic imposition over human ecological coordination (agreed, getting Mestizos to cooperate in ecological management is no small trick; perhaps Asians proper could help reason, coordinate and enforce such management).
Failing that is a default “alliance” by contrast in sudden, “conservative” implementation against Meztiso populations that looks suspiciously in line with Jewish interests against an Asian, Mestizo, White alliance as it would resist continued instigation of the Mulattoization of the broad mass of American Whites, while allying Jewry with increasingly rare White sell-out elites; whose precarious situation would be more and more prone to interbreeding with Jewry or the Mulatto mass.
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 08 January 2019 06:06.
DanielS goes into the enemy camp, continually hesitant, but inserts the time bombs that will bring down their campaign against White sovereignty and systemic homeostasis.
I’ve never seen Luke Ford so stressed (as I did the first time that I hung out with him briefly at the end of a hangout) and I’ve never seen him look so glum (the second time, when he gave me the floor with just him as an interlocutor). Actually, I take no delight in that. I’m sure that he felt pressure given his own position in defense of Jewry and from the Jewish friendly community around him to try to limit my message exposing the “objectivist” anti-“left” marketing campaign. Even so, I was able to say around 80% of what I’d planned - and some ideas will act like time bombs having gotten in there.
This was my first “HANGOUT” and not having opportunity to practice and get feedback as to how I might sound beforehand, I did not realize how persistently hesitant I was and how it was coming across. It was hard even for me to listen to myself the first time around in this uniquely bad delivery of mine. I hesitate constantly, but nevertheless, the content is there and I realized that the second time around listening to it - that it wasn’t all that bad for that reason. I take solace in the fact of knowing that I don’t have to speak that way and don’t usually, in normal conversation. I was in enemy territory, resources at risk, and that is cause for hesitation. But knowing that my position and resources are robust, it was alright to go ahead - I know that my program works now, it can’t be destroyed by the enemy. The best they can hope to do is distract from it, obstruct and try to bury it.
I am honestly not happy to see Luke looking so glum. It’s telling that he adds a link to Cofnas’ critique, like holy water against a goyim assault (I wasn’t impressed by Cofnas’ critique, BTW).
I come on at (2:20:47) and am confronted by Bob, the “bad cop”, the one with one dark eye-glass, lower right.
I had tested the water with him a few days before, on the evening of December 30th, in a Hangout called the “Victory of Social Justice Warriors.”
Seeing the Jewish sponsored meme that’s been promoted since 2008 - you don’t want any of that social justice warring, do you? - I saw it as occasion to join the conversation, which I do, late in the hangout (2:20:47) having just woken up (I’m in a completely different time zone).
(((Kyle))), comes on and tries to intimidate me with a strawman soliloquy
They had a little test or trap (depending upon how you look at it) waiting for me - three antagonistic, young interlocutors. One Jewish kid named (((Kyle))) was supposed to intimidate me with his brilliance. (((Kyle))) is a rather simple fellow, really, even if he can elaborate extensively on his simple cause - advocating his Jewish people (down with their program against “the left”). He interrupted my flow and straw manned me with soliloquys (he acted like I was “confused” - a typical Jewish canard), to clear up my “confusion” about Cochran, making some big deal about how I supposedly didn’t understand Cochran when he knew nothing about what I know, with my having made a few offhand, half joking remarks not intending any elaboration.
Luke Ford flanked by his good cop/bad cop
Then came a little “good cop /bad cop” pair against me. This Bob guy, goy, a Christian of the “irony bro” ilk (Irony Bro means obnoxious trolling with no pretense of trying to understand what the person you are trolling is trying to say, just bury them). Bob is the one with one dark eye glass - a flaming asshole who was attempting to bludgeon me with antagonism from the get go - “here, take this I.Q. test while you are waiting.” Sure Bob, I’ll do that. “Everything you say comes from 4-Chan” - going to show how he knew nothing about me, whipping out a comment perhaps applicable to Andrew Anglin. I have been to 4-chan briefly two or three times and derive literally none of my ideas from it; but that is the kind of immediate accusation this guy was rendering. He went on to say, “I can understand nothing you say” ...I rejoined that maybe his I.Q. isn’t high enough, idiot. (bad cop)
Salty Sage the “good cop” who tries to tell me that he’s on my side - yeah, right.
At the same time they had this other guy, “Salty Sage”, who claimed to be on my side. I don’t know where his two comments are now; but in the hangout and comments, Salty Sage would “kindly”, condescendingly, ‘re-interpret’ me for the others to understand on “friendly terms”. Then he added in the comments, that my “misdirection” (tries to turn the game around on me, as if I am the one giving misdirection, not Jewry; no, Salty Sage, I am the one diagnosing mis-direction), he tries to suggest that I am the one that is giving misdirection and that he sees it “sympathetically” as stemming from necessary contortions of circumstance..
When I called attention to the fact that Gottfried instigated this marketing campaign against “the left”, another “friend”, Ruston, said that I had a thing against Gottfried, thinks he’s great, and that everyone should read him. Then Salty Sage says he’s on my side (good cop). He groans when I say that Christianity is bullshit, then says he’s on my side (good cop Salty Sage is “on my side”, yeah right).
Anyway, that’s the context of my first hangout with Luke:(2:20:47); I make a few points that I don’t make in my subsequent talk, which is mostly me talking and Luke adding a few rejoinders. I didn’t get to say half of what I’d like to say, but the chat encouraged Luke to use the plausible excuse of my bad delivery to prevent me from subverting their position any further. Listen here: DanielS from Majorityrights talks with Luke on the topic of whether Jews are good for Western Civilization (and Europeans generally); you can listen here or Download the MP3: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/are-jews-good-for-western-civilization - Pinned by Luke Ford.
Brundlefly
Norvin Hobbs
One of Luke‘s frequent guests, “Brundlefly” (Jewish wife, Jeff Goldblum Avitar) tries his best to put the damper on my position in the comments (which I re-post under the fold) and was probably one of those who got Luke to shut down the discussion more quickly than he normally would (Luke typically allows discussions to go on for a couple hours and I had expected to say all I had planned to say, but wasn’t given the time). Brundedlefly starts-off amicably enough, while giving away the fact that he knows nothing about me, given his surprise that I am familiar with Norvin Hobbs.
Brundlefly, 1 day ago (edited): Lmao at this guy knowing about Norvin Hobbs
After some commentators who agree with me that Jewry is NOT good for Western Civilization, things get more antagonistic and I defend myself. Only two people seem to be directly on my side, “Kat Ruby” and “Jewel Citizen”, who seems almost like Soren Renner, but I’m not sure who it is….
ARE JEWS GOOD FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION?
Iskandar
23 hours ago
No
Mephistopheles Ghost
22 hours ago
No
The Antagonist
23 hours ago
“Are Jews Good For Western Civilization?”. NO!
Sam Browne
22 hours ago
The answer is no….No they’re not.
United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Whites and Blacks have lived together in the South for 400 years.
United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Majority Rights is hard to listen too.
PersistentPatriot
16 hours ago
Are Termites good for log cabins?
Vegtam Returns
12 hours ago
If.by “good” you mean, enabling the mass invasion of Europe by hostile religious fanatics with low IQs then yes - Jews are very good!
gurugeorge
19 hours ago (edited)
Yes and no. The question is really: are they a net good? NAJALT, plus many great contributions to civilization have been made by Jews, so the question is whether the harm that’s been done by Jewish bad apples (as canvassed in, say, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique ) outweighs the benefits brought by their fellows (e.g. the great academics, entrepreneurs, storytellers, technologists, etc.), or vice-versa.
The situation is rather comparable to the situation re. Muslims: survey after survey has found that while of course NAMALT, a worryingly large minority do wish ill on the host culture, or are at least willing to turn a blind eye. It’s like that with the Jews: some good people who are very, very good, some troublemakers who are very, very bad, and a worryingly large minority who do wish ill on the host culture; so the question is whether the trade-off is worth it. At the moment, it’s not looking good.
All this is why wise people in the past always thought of the Jewish Question as a really, really thorny problem. If you eject Jews from your culture, you risk losing many benefits and becoming something of a backwater; if you don’t eject them, you risk being subverted and having your culture and civilization destroyed from within.
General Patton
23 hours ago
The question can easily be decided by looking at one single issue; immigration.
Jews are, for the most part, open borders lunatics, hell bent on wrecking western nations with massive third world immigration.
Kat Ruby
19 hours ago
After listening from beginning to end, I get the impression that Luke doesn’t like you, Daniel. He uses PC gotcha, ‘you don’t like Jews’ which sets you up in a political correct world as a bad man. But Luke is civilized enough and his perspective as one of Jew’s step-brethren can be enlightening.
Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Kat Ruby probably because Daniel is so devoid of charisma that he felt like his time was being wasted.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly We’ll see if I am “void of charisma” and especially if the content I’m producing is a “waste of time”
99hoolio
20 hours ago
This guy is the anti-KMG. I don’t think I’ve heard a less fluent speaker.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
19 hours ago (edited)
It;s hard even for me to listen to my constant hesitations. It’s a shame because the content is there; but being aware of the frustrating delivery, I’ll be sure to be more fluid in the future.
rollo clevich
16 hours ago
@Daniel Sienkiewicz I now why you delivered a prepared script when you were on Sunic’s VOR show many years ago.
Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz you need to raise your energy level bud. Also the bumping microphone is distracting.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
10 hours ago
Raise my energy level? The bumps and hesitance in my presentation were due mostly to a lack of experience in hangouts. I had (and have) energy enough for much more that I need to say. You sound like Donald Trump in your low energy criticism. Don’t worry, he had enough energy level to complete the raison d’etre of his presidency - to undo the Iran Deal for his people.
Brundlefly
10 hours ago (edited)
Daniel Sienkiewicz you speak in a low monotone. You have the charisma of a paper bag. Go back and read the chat to see how the audience reacted to your presentational style.
I went back and listened a second time, and I found your perspective unique and interesting. However, your presentation is so poor that I doubt you’ll get many opportunities to share it.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago
@Brundlefly I listened a second time as well, and didn’t think it was bad the second time around; and I have much more to say. I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife. It is wishfully negative therefore - “the charisma of a paper bag.” I won’t bother looking at the chat because it is full of HASBRA-like trolls, Christians, etc. They will take as antagonistic a view of me as possible. I may not get many opportunities here to share my view some more if the likes of you and your Jewish friends can help it, but its your loss. I will go elsewhere and they will be better off for it.
Brundlefly
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Lmao keep making excuses for being terrible radio. You pontificate for 25 minutes, Luke speaks for 5 seconds and you’re already cutting him off.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly I didn’t cut him off, he can speak all he wants*. I’m not making excuses. The content is there and there is more to come. I’m sorry for your predicament with your wife, but it’s not my problem. You can try disinformation on the basis of criticizing me and my style, but the content is there, it is informative “radio”, and there is more to come, probably with better style as well.
*You’re talking about the moment when I didn’t want to be tarred with the singular idea that Jews “are parasites” In fact, I got derailed from saying that they are generally antagonistic as a pattern - a different matter from parasitism and also reason to separate from them.
AJC B
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Pop a couple of Modafinils two hours before the show. Wash them down with a double espresso or two but don’t forget the L-theanine!
Brundlefly
7 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I have no criticism of your ideas. I already said I thought they were unique and interesting. I’m offering you the constructive criticism that your presentation is bad and you should work on it if you care about influencing others with your ideas.
Regarding your poor interpersonal skills, you kept interrupting every single time Luke broke in. Apparently, speaking uninterrupted for tens of minutes at a time in a sloth-like cadence isn’t enough for you.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
7 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly Thank you. I’m glad that you like my ideas and there are more to be heard. I have heard many intelligent things from you as well. I already readily acknowledged in my very first comment that it was even hard for me to listen (to me) for all the hesitancy in my speech (maybe because I’d “been out on the town” the night before) but whatever would be my excuse, I have already said that I will concentrate on doing better. Regarding my interpersonal skills, ultimately, Luke spoke, said everything that he intended to say and would speak every time he wanted. And that’s is perfectly fine with me.
ovfuckyou
6 hours ago
@Brundlefly “I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife.” LOL
Daniel Sienkiewicz
6 hours ago
@ovfuckyou Yes, I think that motivated some of his harsh criticisms - charisma of a paper bag, snails pace, shit like that.
Brundlefly
1 hour ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz where’s the lie? You can’t refute my observations so you resort to ad hominem.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
36 minutes ago (edited)
@Brundlefly My very first comment was an acknowledgement that the presentation should have been better. I was unaware of how I was coming across with my continually hesitant speech in this, my first hangout. I said I’d be sure to do better in the future. You agreed that the content was there. ..but produced a flurry of comments under this and other comments - making ad hominum attacks ON ME: You were surprised that I knew who Norvin Hobbs was. Which means that you barely know who I am. But then you went on to draw full conclusions about me from this, my fist hangout - that I “have no charisma” - which you added to Kat Ruby’s comment below,; that I have “the charisma of the paper bag”, that you doubted that I’d get more opportunities to present my ideas because of my poor delivery” - I believe these “observations” are heavily influenced by the fact that my views are a threat to Jewish participation in White advocacy - and perhaps those married into Jewry, as you are. Recognizing the threat, the chat was probably encouraging Luke to truncate my message - I had about twenty percent remaining of what I planned to say - important stuff - would have headed off some of the misdirection that Halsey et al. were trying to put across in the subsequent podcast . But I have lots more more to say and don’t need to say it here; if you are going to insist on blocking me based on conclusions that you try to draw about “my lack of charisma” when, in fact, you know little about me. I was being attacked from the onset in my brief entry to the hangout the other day - so, the people here are not exactly rooting form me - and it is to be expected as I am in Jewish territory replete with trolls and trolling that will seize upon anything that they can to limit my message.
Brundlefly
28 minutes ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I’m not blocking anyone. If you think this audience is hostile to your message, then you don’t understand the audience.
Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 second ago
@Brundlefly I disagree. I do understand the audience and the context.
Jewel Citizen
15 hours ago
There are two words in your title that do not belong in the same sentence let alone next to each other and I’m not referring to ”Western Civilisation”…
United States Border Patrol at Algodones Sand Dunes, California, USA. The fence on the US-Mexican border is a special construction of narrow, 15 feet tall elements, that are movable vertically. This way they can be lifted on top of the ever shifting sand dunes (image Public Domain, Wikipedia).
I come on at (2:20:47) and am confronted by Bob, the “bad cop”, the one with one dark eye-glass, lower right.
(((Kyle))), comes on and tries to intimidate me with a strawman soliloquy 
Luke Ford flanked by his good cop/bad cop
Salty Sage the “good cop” who tries to tell me that he’s on my side - yeah, right.
Brundlefly
Norvin Hobbs
Wind turbines in Nordhorn, Germany. (M. Meissner/AP)
Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including “Web of Debt” and “The Public Bank Solution.”
Elie Wiesel speaks at a World War II tribute. (photo credit: REUTERS)