Funny that amount that was stolen keeps getting bigger. That figure has ranged from $30 b t o $300 b. Russia made up for that lose in growing oil/gas revenues in the first year of the SMO.
"Russia's economic growth accelerated to 5.4% year-on-year in May, according to Federal State Statistics Service and has more or less recovered from the shocks following the imposition of sanctions. Growth remains stymied, but Russia is now growing faster than many of the EU countries that have sanctioned it thanks to the Keynesian boost of massive military spending..."
I'm not a fan of any currency that can be deleted with a keystone. Maybe that's a bit naive with how modern banking works, but at least you can still withdraw it as cash. The best use case I can think of for a block chain digital asset is link each coin with some sort of asset or basket of assets that can be traded freely and recorded publicly. The asset/bundles would be held in various countries under lock and key.
Simp, I was curious and maybe you can work it into one of your sitreps. I've seen tons of videos of Russian tanks and now MLRS being shipped in large groups to the front, but very few videos of them being destroyed by Ukraine.(specifically few tank kills) Am I not following enough pro-ukraine reporting or are they not seeing massive usage right now?
I'm no expert but tanks are an offensive weapon while the Russians are in a defensive stance. I expect they are being held in reserve. Theoretically they could be used in a counter-attack but I further suspect the main purpose is to discourage NATO from sending in troops. That's why Russia has far more troops there than it needs to hold the line. (And yet another reason the Ukrainian offensive was so hopeless).
Tank is not only offensive weapon. Russia often uses tanks for constantly harassing enemy positions from distance or as light artillery for indirect fire from closed positions.
Tanks suck at indirect fire and I imagine using them at max range increases the wear on the barrel.
Amusing anecdote,
Lt. Colonel Jack Hamilton, 2/325 inf. regiment used an M-60 machine gun as an indirect fire weapon on a building. He stood on the hill and directed the fire himself while he and his RTO were under direct fire from the building.
The use of MGs as indirect fire weapons from behind hills, down in trenches, with or without spotters and even in the dark at pre determined areas using nothing but aiming reference points was common during WWI. "Re inventing the wheel" and having to relearn stuff your father or even grandfathers learned the hard way during each new war is a thing...
"I'm not a fan of any currency that can be deleted with a keystone. Maybe that's a bit naive with how modern banking works, but at least you can still withdraw it as cash."
Not necessarily, as both Canada and the UK have recently demonstrated very clearly, esp Canada, who denied protesting truckers access to their bank accounts. A bank can also cancel your account without explanation if they decide to - of course, in that case they have to refund your money.
I find it hilarious that people point to Putin as a member of the WEF, as if by definition that makes him a collaborator. It would be logical for a government to have someone in that organization just to keep an eye on things. I don't know if that's the case with VVP, but it's possible given his intelligence background. Surely people are familiar with the concept of infiltration and spying for national objectives, but that explanation never seems to cross the minds of the Putin detractors. I don't know if he is or isn't a WEF member, but so what? Anyone can join up - in fact I might join them myself just so I can put them on my resume:
nathanial rothschilds twitter had a post at the start of the smo saying putin should be ostracised and be saddamed , thats some pretty strong words. to be bayoneted in the butt til dead
There was one very suspicious person in Russian government who's name is
Anatoly Chubais. Since 1991 he has held key positions in the Russian government and state-owned companies. One of the ideologists and leaders of economic reforms in Russia in the 1990s and the reform of the Russian electric power system in the 2000s. Manager from Russia in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (1995 - 1996). Member of the international council of the American transnational conglomerate JP Morgan Chase (2008 - 2013). Most Russian people have a very negative opinion of him. He is responsible for economical default in 1998. The effectiveness and results of his work in all positions raise many questions. He is one of the most unpopular politicians in modern Russian history after the collapse of the USSR. Many people in Russia think that he only harmed Russia and do not understand why he continued to be appointed to such high positions. He left the country only in March 2022 because he did not agree with the start of the SMO. Now he lives in Israel. I and most of Russians have many questions to Putin about Chubais. Who is this person? Why he always was on high positions in Russian government for whole modern Russian history since 1991? What he was doing all this time? How is he connected with International Monetary Fund, World Bank, JP Morgan and with global financial elites in general? So many questions and no answers.
I'd be surprised if Chubais was the only questionable character near the center of power. I'm sure there are others, human nature being what it is. As someone on the outside, the only gauge I have of Russian politics and economics are the visible results, which appear much better than at any time since the USSR was dissolved.
Here's a question. Is Putin circa 1999 the same guy as Putin today? Time and circumstance do tend to change people. At the outset it appears he believed in cooperation with the West and naively took them at their word that Russia would be welcomed as an equal partner. Perhaps he was late to realize the deceit and duplicity that characterizes the West? Is he someone who could admit a mistake, such as supporting Chubais? How many politicians can admit a mistake? I'm not close enough to know, so as I said, I can only go by what I see. I'll say this though. Russians are rightfully skeptical given their history, both past and recent, but there's a thin line between skepticism and cynicism. Chubais is gone now, as are many others who placed personal ambition ahead of their duty to the nation. Is that for the better or worse? The question I have which stands out above all others is who comes after Putin? Is there an obvious successor that Russians can agree on, or does the transition divide the nation and lead to the loss of what's been achieved since 99?
Why do I take such an interest? Because I don't see anything approaching genuine leadership in the collective West. On the contrary, what I see is a complete clown show with everyone in a position of power trying to milk a dying cow. Multi-polarity is a great concept in principle, but it can't happen without genuine leadership. Is Russia up to the task? Perhaps it's unfair to even ask that question, but is there another nation on earth capable of withstanding the threat of the globalists who clearly have no one's interests at heart but their own?
We don't get to choose the time in which we live, or the challenges we have to face. That is all destiny, or fate if you wish. Our only choice is how we respond to the challenge, and whether our actions take account of those who came before us, and those who'll follow.
I think the most likely after Putin will be Mishustin, the current prime minister. It was Putin who proposed him for the post of prime minister. This person definitely seems to be an effective manager and can run the country and he will probably be a good president. He seems very competent and was quite succesful and effective at previous positions. Mishustin already rule all Russian government. But i'm not sure how he will perform external politics which could be most important and will he be able to stand against West because he seems more soft than Putin.
OK, that sounds good. I have to ask though, because I just love her style. Is there any chance of Maria Z advancing beyond just a spokesperson? She seems like she'd be capable.
Are you talking about Maria Zakharova? If yes then i don't think that she can take some very high position in the Russian government. She is not a manager, but a journalist and historian, perhaps a diplomat. I don't know what could be a higher position for her as a journalist. And the highest theoretically possible position for her as a diplomat is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Absolutely agree - independent from her credentials as stated in your comment - as woman CANNOT be A LEADER - "leaders" of course! Simply put, if you have responsibility of "fighting a war" you must be equipped of fighting a war. Merkel is the best/worst example of such failures .... URSULA THE BLOND is following suit!
Traditionally usury was forbidden in the Christian world as well. But the way people got around it was to allow Jewish people to issue loans with interest since they had no qualms at all about usury and in fact encouraged it. Indeed, this is how the modern Western banking system got its start and the Rothchilds and the like prospered hugely, gaining great power and influence over governments who needed money for their wars.
Not necessarily. The term has a couple different meanings. In the more modern sense, usury is the charging of an exorbitant amount of interest on a loan, usually above market rate. The other, more traditional and historical use of the term was the simple loaning of money with interest attached which is the basis of traditional Christian and Islamic teachings.
Economics would say that regardless of what you call it, if you lend money then it has a price which must be the equivalent to the risk free rate plus a market based risk premium. The risk free rate is normally related to the rate at which you can lend to the government. The market based risk premium will be an imperfect uplift to reflect the lenders assessment and the borrowers ability to go elsewhere. There is the old adage that if you need to borrow money, you won't be able to...
My understanding of Islamic banking is that this price of borriwng money - called interest in western banking systems - is simply disguised via other transactions. So fees, profit share, etc etc. It must be quite sophisticated to function at all. But as a simple example if you took a 3 year car loan out for $30,000, there might be an upfront fee of $3,000 and an annual fee of $1,000. So you end up with a price of $6,000 on a $30,000 3 year loan.
Back when the Pentateuch was written you became a slave if you couldn't pay back your loan, or you could give your daughter instead if agreeable to the lender. I think that is why lending money at interest is regarded negatively by Christians and Muslims.
I agree. But one also needs to recognise the fact that European greed for power was the fuel that allowed the Jews to prosper. Talmudism encourages Jews to take advantage of the Goyim's weaknesses - morality, lust for power and wealth, etc. in order to further their individual (or corporate) goals.
I never said they did. People at that level are not religious. Instead they use Zionism as a weapon. in their longer term effort to control the world. They believe in Jewish supremacy but they are not Zionists, though they support Zionist causes as I mentioned.
I believe you said this: Talmudism encourages Jews to take advantage of the Goyim's weaknesses - morality, lust for power and wealth, etc. in order to further their individual (or corporate) goals.
And my point is that ‘Talmudism’ is not a concept that the majority of Jews adhere to, particularly if they’ve never even seen a Talmud. So now the discussion morphs from Talmudism to Zionism? The definition of Zionism is the right for Jews to have a homeland. Yes, I know that the ‘definition’ has morphed into something else. The fact that you believe that Jews want to control the world would seem to indicate that you’re not looking high enough. Try the Bilderberg Steering Committee to start.
Again, please read what I write. Not all Jews are Talmudists and I never said they were and I never associated Zionism with Talmudism. I was answering your statement about Rothschild and associates. I'm certain they don't read the Talmud and probably never have, but these have always supported Zionism as part of their programme to rule the world. What I said about Talmudism stands - followers of the Talmud believe that pretty much anything is fair game when it comes to the Goyim.
You believe the Bilderbergs are higher than the international banking cartel? Interesting.
I DID read what you wrote: Talmudism encourages Jews to take advantage of the Goyim's weaknesses
The Jews that read the Talmud (basically Orthodox, Hasidic, etc.,) are not the Jews that the internet advises want to ‘rule the world’. They are not involved in domestic or international politics. And yes the Bilderberg Steering Committee tells the banking cartels what to do. Look up the members (as it appears you haven’??). And perhaps stop conflating Zionism with globalism. People who go after power and control are not doing so because of ethnicity. Otherwise, we can assume that Rockefeller, Gates, Morgan, Carnegie, etc., have nothing to do with this? No, we pick up on. Rothschild for a SPECIFIC reason, and leave all the ‘Protestants’ our of this? Seriously???
It's a myth that Jews prospered, some did, most didn't and it wasn't unusual for Jewish proxies to be ruined, expelled or murdered when it was convenient. (I bet you already knew that didn't you?)
Indeed. Most Jews were looked down on, often because of the negative effects they had on the communities they lived in - they were standoffish, refusing to assimilate, some cheated people of their property through loans they knew could not be repaid, and they often engaged in or encouraged questionable practices against the common European standards of morality - nearly always to acquire wealth.
Certainly not all Jews, but enough to clearly establish a certain reputation among those in whose communities they lived. And of course, there was the religious aspect of this antipathy - both on the Europeans side ("Christ killers", and on the Jewish side (Jewish supremacists, Talmudists). There was plenty of blame to throw around. Jews throughout history have been looked down on for various reasons and even expelled from countries. They always come up with reasons for this but it has occurred so many times over the centuries that one has to wonder why they never seem to look inward to see if such things might happen because of their own behaviour among the gentiles - it is always someone else's fault - anti-Semitism, or whatever, they are always without exception, the victims.
The Jews I commented on were not ALL Jews but those to whom governments approached for loans for their wars - it was these whose religion allowed them to practice usury and thus amass great wealth. It was common for these same Jews to finance both sides of the war - extremely profitable and ultimately gained them huge power and influence - this behaviour also often contributing to the general reputation of Jews.
"And like I said, there’s a chance that Putin is conducting a long drawn-out personal crusade to slowly reform the entire system, with the end-goal being a real gold or asset-backed currency"
Oh c'mon. We have decades of speeches from Putin that clearly tell us he values centralization above anything else. A gold or silver backed currency (which can't even work in a fractional reserve system, btw) would dramatically lessen the ability of the Kremlin to control such a physically massive country.
If the ruble were made convertible to gold, the dollar would be dead within a few months. Pretty much all of Russia's foreign policy problems would vanish. Don't think that Putin doesn't know this, either.
And yet he still keeps using the same fiat system. Why is this? Because utilizing fiat/banking as a means of control has always been an inherent part of the Putinist system and it can't continue to exist otherwise. In fact, I am certain that if Putin made a serious attempt to make the ruble convertible to gold or silver, his own guys would take him out.
Who said Putin was working towards a fractional reserve system? Look at the Islamic banking system as a guide there. Theirs does not utilise fractional reserves as I understand it. Nonetheless, it is more than possible to create a monetary system in which the government has complete control over the creation of money and can lend or create money based on the productive power of the state.
Its obvious metal as money is a silly idea: first there 'aint enough gold or silver anywhere anyway; second study money history - e.g. Graeber, Hudson, Keen, and know money has always been that dirty word 'fiat' and barter never existed.
One of gold's attributes as money is its rarity. It can't be printed willy nilly like states are prone to do with their fiat, who thereby destroy people's wealth, slowly, but sometimes quickly as in hyperinflation. Fiat has always become money when living within one's means didn't suit the political elite, usually when they wanted to go to war.
Art DO SOME READING - David Graeber and Steve Keen for starters and wean yourself of the libertarian psychopathic grooming opiate shit. Who owns gold mines owns the money supply! Money doesn't need to be rare ffs, it needs to a) reflect the quantity of goods and services and resources in the real economy, and b) be TRUSTED i.e. money supply is like land, health, education, transport, infrastructure, rights to pollute, a public NATURAL MONOPOLY - just like it has been in much of the last 5000years until the psychopaths took over in the 'west' : How did ancient people deal with psychopaths? They arranged for them to have an 'accident' out hunting. Instead we now vote for them!
Is this your argument, calling people names? Steve Keen doesn't call economists he disagrees with nasty ass names, he argues with them and they argue back. And from what I've read there is mutual respect despite disagreements.
Nice try Art Thomas - dodging the issues being discussed, by way of fake appeals to straw men I haven't raised: "nasty ass names" like "psychopathic" - Art mate, I understand that having your pet world view attacked by a stranger such as myself labelling it "psychopathic" may well feel threatening to you - touch luck.
Meanwhile I'm not a formerly tenured academic like Steve Keen with funding stream applications to worry about so I don't need to mind my language when labelling a so called "economic theory" a blatant psychopathic grooming exercis. Beside calling an economic theory and those who propound them "psychopathic" is NOT calling them "nasty ass names" its a name that describes the sum of the components of that theory :-)
Instead get a grip and face the points I have raised: 1) TRUST is taken away by gold / silver as money; 2) Barter has hardly ever existed in historical anthropological records; 3) trying to support a "theory" that pretends 1) & 2) reflects true human behaviour is classic psychopathic grooming i.e. suggesting that any trust someone may have in other memebers of their community and beyond should be gotten rid of, is blaming the victim by forcing them to accept that axiomatically they too must not trust anybody because everyone else - according to the "theory" - is out to undermine any residual trust they may possess.
1. What trust is taken away by gold and silver as money? What evidence do you have to back up that claim? What money is trustworthy if gold and silver are not, in your opinion?
2. When there is no accepted medium of exchange e.g. money, how do people trade with each other?
Natasha, you might enjoy a book, "The Case Against the Fed" by the late Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard. It can be downloaded as an epub document for free from mises.org.
Thanks I've read libertarians like Rothbard - they are psychopathic shits that propagandise the myth of gold as money / commodity crap - try eating metal when fields of real food runs out.
In chapter twelve of Ethics Rothbard argues that police should be able to torture certain types of criminal suspects, including accused murderers, for information related to their alleged crime.
Rothbard, Murray (1998). "Self-Defense". The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press. pp. 77–84. ISBN 978-0-8147-7506-6. Archived from the original on September 14, 2014. Retrieved September 13, 2014.
Noam Chomsky critiqued Rothbard's ideal society as "a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it ... First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something."
Schoeffel, John; Chomsky, Noam (2011). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-8817-7. Archived from the original on August 6, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2015.
Rothbard opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed women's voting and activism for the growth of the welfare state.
Hawley, George (2016). Right-wing critics of American conservatism. Lawrence. pp. 159–167. ISBN 978-0-7006-2193-4. OCLC 925410917.
O'Malley, Michael (2012). Face Value: The Entwined Histories of Money and Race in America. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 205–07
Jensen, Jacob (April 2022). "Repurposing Mises: Murray Rothbard and the Birth of Anarchocapitalism". Journal of the History of Ideas. 83 (2): 315–332. doi:10.1353/jhi.2022.0015. ISSN 1086-3222. PMID 35603616. S2CID 248985277.
Slobodian, Quinn (2023). Crack-up capitalism: market radicals and the dream of a world without democracy (First ed.). New York: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-1-250-75390-8.
Michael O'Malley, associate professor of history at George Mason University, describes Rothbard's tone toward the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement as "contemptuous and hostile". Rothbard criticized women's rights activists, attributing the growth of the welfare state to politically active spinsters "whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of health and heart". Rothbard argued that the progressive movement, which he regarded as a noxious influence on the United States, was spearheaded by a coalition of Yankee Protestants (people from the six New England states and upstate New York who were Protestants of English descent), Jewish women and "lesbian spinsters"
Murray N. Rothbard (August 11, 2006). "Origins of the Welfare State in America" Archived October 11, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. mises.org.
O'Malley, Michael (2012). Face Value: The Entwined Histories of Money and Race in America. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 205–07
In other words even wikipedia acknowledges that Rothbard is a psychopathic shit, further there are primary sources referenced on that wikipedia page, if you care to check the quotes I give.
Nicely done. So no interest charged instead a sharing of the profit or loss seems so sensible.
Everything you say I think is what is happening with long term goals in place for BRICS etc.
Well done!
Typical of the conquerors is to claim all the social assets of the conquered as Young Global Leaders of the WEF. A telling sign of social delusions in this day and age.
I follow Sasha Latypova and believe she does good work on the virus/vaccine front, but I differ with her position on Russia, which is basically that they're part of the cabal, using some of the same arguments you have countered with this article. I wonder if you've ever debated her on this, and if not, would you be up for it? I've tried myself, but haven't had much success.
I know a lot of people see Russia through rose-tinted glasses, but I'm not one of them. Realistically speaking, I think Russia gets many things right and a lot of that is attributable to VVP, but I worry about what happens after he's gone. I'd love to see Maria Warrior Princess in that role, but is Russia ready for a woman to lead them? One thing I will say, Russia is culturally in very good shape. My main area of study is their music scene, and by that measure Russia is doing very well indeed, having largely abandoned English lyrics and mimicry of western pop groups, drawing more and more on their historic roots for inspiration. A good example:
Following the CBDC discourse as a non-American THROUGH the American discourse, I think the base of the fearmongering is a very American phenomena where there are a lot of private banks that is more-or-less adhering to a central authority. In reality, most banking system in the world is somewhat more centralized than what Americans had in their country and what most people (in this case not just American) about CBDC controlling what they own/have/saved is already possible without CBDC. Case in point: Nigel Farage and the Canadian truckers!
Here I think London Paul further assesment was right: the dollar, in particular, would never went full digital because physical USD is what the drug lord, human traffickers, and all sorts of criminal use for transaction. The Federal Reserve would NEVER going full digital for this exact reason. Michael Hudson in some of his seminar revealed that it was indeed the US government goal to make US and USD the safe haven for criminal activity so they can replace Switzerland on that regard.
How do the Rothchilds and their ilk maintain the anonymity of their holdings etc when digital ID and CBDCs replace cash - whenevery penny a prol earns, spends, or saves, and what the prol purchases, will be known to the state etc ?
Yeah, the more they try to control banking system through this byzantine dual private-public system, the more mental gymnast they have to pull. How do you even tell the majority of the population that they can only use CBDC whilst somehow some sort of cash economy being kept around?
I make my initial comment here before I finished Simp's article. Now that I do, I understand that The Federal Reserve is basically a private cartel masquerading as a public institution and that the dynastic-feudalistic banking families are indeed have their interest in controlling the majority of the population just like in the time of old. But that's the thing: there is inherent contradiction between their goal and the mean of it. Feudalism of the past survived because everything could be kept secret off of the illiterate peasants and citizens. Now modern nation-states governance has its public sector must be transparent to its constituency/taxpayers. You can fool the general population for a while but the contradiction between feudalistic secrecy and modern governance transparency will to its head. This is why Soros Open Foundation worked so hard undermining the nation-states and wanted it to be replaced by NGO who's more oblique and beholden to their financiers.
As long as the West keep the secretive dynastic banking families within their financial system, their CBDC will eventually be used for nefarious purposes. This is the particularities of the Western system that sets its apart with other civilization banking system.
Addendum: In regards to non-usurious Islamic banking loan, they've done this (at least in classical times) by making the "interest payment" either on a fixed amount or/and turned them into a physical commodities. So the problem of fiat banking/usurious loan can be limited by the fact that its interest payment is tied to a physical commodity, preventing debtor to become beholden to the lender due to uncontrollable unpaid debt interest.
Great sitrep, I knew the Fed was actually a private entity, but had no idea just how rotten it was until today. Lol should've guessed though. You know sometimes I think that if Americans were fully aware of what is being done to them and in their name, there would be riots on the streets tomorrow morning in every county, every major population center in the continental US of A.
Funny that amount that was stolen keeps getting bigger. That figure has ranged from $30 b t o $300 b. Russia made up for that lose in growing oil/gas revenues in the first year of the SMO.
solid research
great stuff
keep it up 👍
This is very timely. And in a world where banking interests define geopolitical reality, this is very telling. Thank you.
"Russia's economic growth accelerated to 5.4% year-on-year in May, according to Federal State Statistics Service and has more or less recovered from the shocks following the imposition of sanctions. Growth remains stymied, but Russia is now growing faster than many of the EU countries that have sanctioned it thanks to the Keynesian boost of massive military spending..."
https://www.intellinews.com/reports/russia-monthly-country-report-august-2023-110563/
I'm not a fan of any currency that can be deleted with a keystone. Maybe that's a bit naive with how modern banking works, but at least you can still withdraw it as cash. The best use case I can think of for a block chain digital asset is link each coin with some sort of asset or basket of assets that can be traded freely and recorded publicly. The asset/bundles would be held in various countries under lock and key.
Simp, I was curious and maybe you can work it into one of your sitreps. I've seen tons of videos of Russian tanks and now MLRS being shipped in large groups to the front, but very few videos of them being destroyed by Ukraine.(specifically few tank kills) Am I not following enough pro-ukraine reporting or are they not seeing massive usage right now?
I'm no expert but tanks are an offensive weapon while the Russians are in a defensive stance. I expect they are being held in reserve. Theoretically they could be used in a counter-attack but I further suspect the main purpose is to discourage NATO from sending in troops. That's why Russia has far more troops there than it needs to hold the line. (And yet another reason the Ukrainian offensive was so hopeless).
Tank is not only offensive weapon. Russia often uses tanks for constantly harassing enemy positions from distance or as light artillery for indirect fire from closed positions.
Yes I was exaggerating, but the tanks are hidden away and would be hard to destroy, which is what Nibinay was asking about.
Tanks suck at indirect fire and I imagine using them at max range increases the wear on the barrel.
Amusing anecdote,
Lt. Colonel Jack Hamilton, 2/325 inf. regiment used an M-60 machine gun as an indirect fire weapon on a building. He stood on the hill and directed the fire himself while he and his RTO were under direct fire from the building.
The use of MGs as indirect fire weapons from behind hills, down in trenches, with or without spotters and even in the dark at pre determined areas using nothing but aiming reference points was common during WWI. "Re inventing the wheel" and having to relearn stuff your father or even grandfathers learned the hard way during each new war is a thing...
I believe it is called "plunging fire."
"I'm not a fan of any currency that can be deleted with a keystone. Maybe that's a bit naive with how modern banking works, but at least you can still withdraw it as cash."
Not necessarily, as both Canada and the UK have recently demonstrated very clearly, esp Canada, who denied protesting truckers access to their bank accounts. A bank can also cancel your account without explanation if they decide to - of course, in that case they have to refund your money.
What if cash is abolished? How do you get a refund if your account is closed without explanation?
It's more than semantics but when you deposit money in the bank it becomes the banks money and you get an IOU.
Yep. And if the bank goes under, that iou is worth little or nothing unless it falls within Federal Deposit Insurance limits.
Very interesting and educative.
I had no idea how "The Fed" worked, it just feels like pure self-interest evil.
Awesome sauce Simplicius! Keep up the good work.
Read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" for an even more complete understanding of exactly who and what the Fed is.
Very interesting and educative.
I had no idea how "The Fed" worked, it just feels like pure self-interest evil.
Awesome sauce Simplicius! Keep up the good work.
I always despised compounding interest but found simple interest acceptable due to its simplicity.
I find it hilarious that people point to Putin as a member of the WEF, as if by definition that makes him a collaborator. It would be logical for a government to have someone in that organization just to keep an eye on things. I don't know if that's the case with VVP, but it's possible given his intelligence background. Surely people are familiar with the concept of infiltration and spying for national objectives, but that explanation never seems to cross the minds of the Putin detractors. I don't know if he is or isn't a WEF member, but so what? Anyone can join up - in fact I might join them myself just so I can put them on my resume:
https://www.weforum.org/join-us/home
I wonder if you get a little membership card you can show the cops when they stop you for speeding? That would be handy, no?
nathanial rothschilds twitter had a post at the start of the smo saying putin should be ostracised and be saddamed , thats some pretty strong words. to be bayoneted in the butt til dead
Saddam Hussein was hanged. Moammar Gaddafi was the one who was bayoneted.
Send Clown Zelensky back where he belongs 🤡
To the Donbass, where he was born?
There was one very suspicious person in Russian government who's name is
Anatoly Chubais. Since 1991 he has held key positions in the Russian government and state-owned companies. One of the ideologists and leaders of economic reforms in Russia in the 1990s and the reform of the Russian electric power system in the 2000s. Manager from Russia in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (1995 - 1996). Member of the international council of the American transnational conglomerate JP Morgan Chase (2008 - 2013). Most Russian people have a very negative opinion of him. He is responsible for economical default in 1998. The effectiveness and results of his work in all positions raise many questions. He is one of the most unpopular politicians in modern Russian history after the collapse of the USSR. Many people in Russia think that he only harmed Russia and do not understand why he continued to be appointed to such high positions. He left the country only in March 2022 because he did not agree with the start of the SMO. Now he lives in Israel. I and most of Russians have many questions to Putin about Chubais. Who is this person? Why he always was on high positions in Russian government for whole modern Russian history since 1991? What he was doing all this time? How is he connected with International Monetary Fund, World Bank, JP Morgan and with global financial elites in general? So many questions and no answers.
I'd be surprised if Chubais was the only questionable character near the center of power. I'm sure there are others, human nature being what it is. As someone on the outside, the only gauge I have of Russian politics and economics are the visible results, which appear much better than at any time since the USSR was dissolved.
Here's a question. Is Putin circa 1999 the same guy as Putin today? Time and circumstance do tend to change people. At the outset it appears he believed in cooperation with the West and naively took them at their word that Russia would be welcomed as an equal partner. Perhaps he was late to realize the deceit and duplicity that characterizes the West? Is he someone who could admit a mistake, such as supporting Chubais? How many politicians can admit a mistake? I'm not close enough to know, so as I said, I can only go by what I see. I'll say this though. Russians are rightfully skeptical given their history, both past and recent, but there's a thin line between skepticism and cynicism. Chubais is gone now, as are many others who placed personal ambition ahead of their duty to the nation. Is that for the better or worse? The question I have which stands out above all others is who comes after Putin? Is there an obvious successor that Russians can agree on, or does the transition divide the nation and lead to the loss of what's been achieved since 99?
Why do I take such an interest? Because I don't see anything approaching genuine leadership in the collective West. On the contrary, what I see is a complete clown show with everyone in a position of power trying to milk a dying cow. Multi-polarity is a great concept in principle, but it can't happen without genuine leadership. Is Russia up to the task? Perhaps it's unfair to even ask that question, but is there another nation on earth capable of withstanding the threat of the globalists who clearly have no one's interests at heart but their own?
We don't get to choose the time in which we live, or the challenges we have to face. That is all destiny, or fate if you wish. Our only choice is how we respond to the challenge, and whether our actions take account of those who came before us, and those who'll follow.
I think the most likely after Putin will be Mishustin, the current prime minister. It was Putin who proposed him for the post of prime minister. This person definitely seems to be an effective manager and can run the country and he will probably be a good president. He seems very competent and was quite succesful and effective at previous positions. Mishustin already rule all Russian government. But i'm not sure how he will perform external politics which could be most important and will he be able to stand against West because he seems more soft than Putin.
OK, that sounds good. I have to ask though, because I just love her style. Is there any chance of Maria Z advancing beyond just a spokesperson? She seems like she'd be capable.
Are you talking about Maria Zakharova? If yes then i don't think that she can take some very high position in the Russian government. She is not a manager, but a journalist and historian, perhaps a diplomat. I don't know what could be a higher position for her as a journalist. And the highest theoretically possible position for her as a diplomat is the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Minister of Foreign Affairs works for me! Thanks.
She'll need to sort her hair and eyebrows out first.
Absolutely agree - independent from her credentials as stated in your comment - as woman CANNOT be A LEADER - "leaders" of course! Simply put, if you have responsibility of "fighting a war" you must be equipped of fighting a war. Merkel is the best/worst example of such failures .... URSULA THE BLOND is following suit!
😂😂😂😂😂
Meow, meow, meow. Thank you for sharing a bit of your world. My wattage is increasing, hanging here with the bright bulbs. Old lady with a kat❤️🐈⬛🤓
Watch out, kat
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-bans-traditional-lightbulbs-us-210649039.html
The Islamic bank concept is brilliant.
In addition, islamic finance considers only gold and silver to be the most appropriate medium of exchange to be used in the Islamic economies.
Traditionally usury was forbidden in the Christian world as well. But the way people got around it was to allow Jewish people to issue loans with interest since they had no qualms at all about usury and in fact encouraged it. Indeed, this is how the modern Western banking system got its start and the Rothchilds and the like prospered hugely, gaining great power and influence over governments who needed money for their wars.
It is convenient not to confuse usury with interest on the loan
Hutchinson, Marjorie (1952). The School of Salamanca; Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory, 1544-1605. Oxford: Clarendon
Not necessarily. The term has a couple different meanings. In the more modern sense, usury is the charging of an exorbitant amount of interest on a loan, usually above market rate. The other, more traditional and historical use of the term was the simple loaning of money with interest attached which is the basis of traditional Christian and Islamic teachings.
Economics would say that regardless of what you call it, if you lend money then it has a price which must be the equivalent to the risk free rate plus a market based risk premium. The risk free rate is normally related to the rate at which you can lend to the government. The market based risk premium will be an imperfect uplift to reflect the lenders assessment and the borrowers ability to go elsewhere. There is the old adage that if you need to borrow money, you won't be able to...
My understanding of Islamic banking is that this price of borriwng money - called interest in western banking systems - is simply disguised via other transactions. So fees, profit share, etc etc. It must be quite sophisticated to function at all. But as a simple example if you took a 3 year car loan out for $30,000, there might be an upfront fee of $3,000 and an annual fee of $1,000. So you end up with a price of $6,000 on a $30,000 3 year loan.
Back when the Pentateuch was written you became a slave if you couldn't pay back your loan, or you could give your daughter instead if agreeable to the lender. I think that is why lending money at interest is regarded negatively by Christians and Muslims.
Some christian teaching about money and interest (From the Gospel)
“So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest.”
Matthew 25:27
“Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?”
Luke 19:23
“Interest” (not unreasonable interest or usury)
Just sayin…
And Jewish teaching.
Do you have to repay a loan - let alone interest of having the privilege to wnader HIS CREATION - to GOD ALMIGHTY that HE CREATED "you"/EVERYTHING?
Interest bearing loans, like LOVE for ALL material possessions are of THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN!
No, Jewish proxies were bankrupted, expelled or murdered when it was expedient.
Islamic banking has been going on Malaysia for decades now.
I have one word: "Jews"
I agree. But one also needs to recognise the fact that European greed for power was the fuel that allowed the Jews to prosper. Talmudism encourages Jews to take advantage of the Goyim's weaknesses - morality, lust for power and wealth, etc. in order to further their individual (or corporate) goals.
Utter BS. And I guarantee that the likes of Larry Fink, or even Rothschild, have never seen a Talmud, much less read one.
I never said they did. People at that level are not religious. Instead they use Zionism as a weapon. in their longer term effort to control the world. They believe in Jewish supremacy but they are not Zionists, though they support Zionist causes as I mentioned.
I believe you said this: Talmudism encourages Jews to take advantage of the Goyim's weaknesses - morality, lust for power and wealth, etc. in order to further their individual (or corporate) goals.
And my point is that ‘Talmudism’ is not a concept that the majority of Jews adhere to, particularly if they’ve never even seen a Talmud. So now the discussion morphs from Talmudism to Zionism? The definition of Zionism is the right for Jews to have a homeland. Yes, I know that the ‘definition’ has morphed into something else. The fact that you believe that Jews want to control the world would seem to indicate that you’re not looking high enough. Try the Bilderberg Steering Committee to start.
Again, please read what I write. Not all Jews are Talmudists and I never said they were and I never associated Zionism with Talmudism. I was answering your statement about Rothschild and associates. I'm certain they don't read the Talmud and probably never have, but these have always supported Zionism as part of their programme to rule the world. What I said about Talmudism stands - followers of the Talmud believe that pretty much anything is fair game when it comes to the Goyim.
You believe the Bilderbergs are higher than the international banking cartel? Interesting.
I DID read what you wrote: Talmudism encourages Jews to take advantage of the Goyim's weaknesses
The Jews that read the Talmud (basically Orthodox, Hasidic, etc.,) are not the Jews that the internet advises want to ‘rule the world’. They are not involved in domestic or international politics. And yes the Bilderberg Steering Committee tells the banking cartels what to do. Look up the members (as it appears you haven’??). And perhaps stop conflating Zionism with globalism. People who go after power and control are not doing so because of ethnicity. Otherwise, we can assume that Rockefeller, Gates, Morgan, Carnegie, etc., have nothing to do with this? No, we pick up on. Rothschild for a SPECIFIC reason, and leave all the ‘Protestants’ our of this? Seriously???
Let’s play ‘Name the Jews!!’ https://bilderbergmeetings.org/background/steering-committee/steering-committee
It's a myth that Jews prospered, some did, most didn't and it wasn't unusual for Jewish proxies to be ruined, expelled or murdered when it was convenient. (I bet you already knew that didn't you?)
Indeed. Most Jews were looked down on, often because of the negative effects they had on the communities they lived in - they were standoffish, refusing to assimilate, some cheated people of their property through loans they knew could not be repaid, and they often engaged in or encouraged questionable practices against the common European standards of morality - nearly always to acquire wealth.
Certainly not all Jews, but enough to clearly establish a certain reputation among those in whose communities they lived. And of course, there was the religious aspect of this antipathy - both on the Europeans side ("Christ killers", and on the Jewish side (Jewish supremacists, Talmudists). There was plenty of blame to throw around. Jews throughout history have been looked down on for various reasons and even expelled from countries. They always come up with reasons for this but it has occurred so many times over the centuries that one has to wonder why they never seem to look inward to see if such things might happen because of their own behaviour among the gentiles - it is always someone else's fault - anti-Semitism, or whatever, they are always without exception, the victims.
The Jews I commented on were not ALL Jews but those to whom governments approached for loans for their wars - it was these whose religion allowed them to practice usury and thus amass great wealth. It was common for these same Jews to finance both sides of the war - extremely profitable and ultimately gained them huge power and influence - this behaviour also often contributing to the general reputation of Jews.
Where's there's smoke there's fire. A morally correct people, with a good social standing don't get expelled from 100 countries over a millenia.
Yet they seem never to have undergone any form of self-analysis as to why this has been so, preferring instead to always blame others.
"And like I said, there’s a chance that Putin is conducting a long drawn-out personal crusade to slowly reform the entire system, with the end-goal being a real gold or asset-backed currency"
Oh c'mon. We have decades of speeches from Putin that clearly tell us he values centralization above anything else. A gold or silver backed currency (which can't even work in a fractional reserve system, btw) would dramatically lessen the ability of the Kremlin to control such a physically massive country.
If the ruble were made convertible to gold, the dollar would be dead within a few months. Pretty much all of Russia's foreign policy problems would vanish. Don't think that Putin doesn't know this, either.
And yet he still keeps using the same fiat system. Why is this? Because utilizing fiat/banking as a means of control has always been an inherent part of the Putinist system and it can't continue to exist otherwise. In fact, I am certain that if Putin made a serious attempt to make the ruble convertible to gold or silver, his own guys would take him out.
Who said Putin was working towards a fractional reserve system? Look at the Islamic banking system as a guide there. Theirs does not utilise fractional reserves as I understand it. Nonetheless, it is more than possible to create a monetary system in which the government has complete control over the creation of money and can lend or create money based on the productive power of the state.
Its obvious metal as money is a silly idea: first there 'aint enough gold or silver anywhere anyway; second study money history - e.g. Graeber, Hudson, Keen, and know money has always been that dirty word 'fiat' and barter never existed.
One of gold's attributes as money is its rarity. It can't be printed willy nilly like states are prone to do with their fiat, who thereby destroy people's wealth, slowly, but sometimes quickly as in hyperinflation. Fiat has always become money when living within one's means didn't suit the political elite, usually when they wanted to go to war.
Art DO SOME READING - David Graeber and Steve Keen for starters and wean yourself of the libertarian psychopathic grooming opiate shit. Who owns gold mines owns the money supply! Money doesn't need to be rare ffs, it needs to a) reflect the quantity of goods and services and resources in the real economy, and b) be TRUSTED i.e. money supply is like land, health, education, transport, infrastructure, rights to pollute, a public NATURAL MONOPOLY - just like it has been in much of the last 5000years until the psychopaths took over in the 'west' : How did ancient people deal with psychopaths? They arranged for them to have an 'accident' out hunting. Instead we now vote for them!
Is this your argument, calling people names? Steve Keen doesn't call economists he disagrees with nasty ass names, he argues with them and they argue back. And from what I've read there is mutual respect despite disagreements.
Nice try Art Thomas - dodging the issues being discussed, by way of fake appeals to straw men I haven't raised: "nasty ass names" like "psychopathic" - Art mate, I understand that having your pet world view attacked by a stranger such as myself labelling it "psychopathic" may well feel threatening to you - touch luck.
Meanwhile I'm not a formerly tenured academic like Steve Keen with funding stream applications to worry about so I don't need to mind my language when labelling a so called "economic theory" a blatant psychopathic grooming exercis. Beside calling an economic theory and those who propound them "psychopathic" is NOT calling them "nasty ass names" its a name that describes the sum of the components of that theory :-)
Instead get a grip and face the points I have raised: 1) TRUST is taken away by gold / silver as money; 2) Barter has hardly ever existed in historical anthropological records; 3) trying to support a "theory" that pretends 1) & 2) reflects true human behaviour is classic psychopathic grooming i.e. suggesting that any trust someone may have in other memebers of their community and beyond should be gotten rid of, is blaming the victim by forcing them to accept that axiomatically they too must not trust anybody because everyone else - according to the "theory" - is out to undermine any residual trust they may possess.
1. What trust is taken away by gold and silver as money? What evidence do you have to back up that claim? What money is trustworthy if gold and silver are not, in your opinion?
2. When there is no accepted medium of exchange e.g. money, how do people trade with each other?
Natasha, you might enjoy a book, "The Case Against the Fed" by the late Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard. It can be downloaded as an epub document for free from mises.org.
Thanks I've read libertarians like Rothbard - they are psychopathic shits that propagandise the myth of gold as money / commodity crap - try eating metal when fields of real food runs out.
In chapter twelve of Ethics Rothbard argues that police should be able to torture certain types of criminal suspects, including accused murderers, for information related to their alleged crime.
Rothbard, Murray (1998). "Self-Defense". The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press. pp. 77–84. ISBN 978-0-8147-7506-6. Archived from the original on September 14, 2014. Retrieved September 13, 2014.
Noam Chomsky critiqued Rothbard's ideal society as "a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it ... First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something."
Schoeffel, John; Chomsky, Noam (2011). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-8817-7. Archived from the original on August 6, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2015.
Rothbard opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed women's voting and activism for the growth of the welfare state.
Hawley, George (2016). Right-wing critics of American conservatism. Lawrence. pp. 159–167. ISBN 978-0-7006-2193-4. OCLC 925410917.
O'Malley, Michael (2012). Face Value: The Entwined Histories of Money and Race in America. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 205–07
Jensen, Jacob (April 2022). "Repurposing Mises: Murray Rothbard and the Birth of Anarchocapitalism". Journal of the History of Ideas. 83 (2): 315–332. doi:10.1353/jhi.2022.0015. ISSN 1086-3222. PMID 35603616. S2CID 248985277.
Slobodian, Quinn (2023). Crack-up capitalism: market radicals and the dream of a world without democracy (First ed.). New York: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 978-1-250-75390-8.
Michael O'Malley, associate professor of history at George Mason University, describes Rothbard's tone toward the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement as "contemptuous and hostile". Rothbard criticized women's rights activists, attributing the growth of the welfare state to politically active spinsters "whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of health and heart". Rothbard argued that the progressive movement, which he regarded as a noxious influence on the United States, was spearheaded by a coalition of Yankee Protestants (people from the six New England states and upstate New York who were Protestants of English descent), Jewish women and "lesbian spinsters"
Murray N. Rothbard (August 11, 2006). "Origins of the Welfare State in America" Archived October 11, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. mises.org.
O'Malley, Michael (2012). Face Value: The Entwined Histories of Money and Race in America. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 205–07
Reference and original sources from:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
Wikipedia? Okay...
In other words even wikipedia acknowledges that Rothbard is a psychopathic shit, further there are primary sources referenced on that wikipedia page, if you care to check the quotes I give.
Wikipedia is extreme left, so they're never going to approve of Rothbard. Nice try.
Nicely done. So no interest charged instead a sharing of the profit or loss seems so sensible.
Everything you say I think is what is happening with long term goals in place for BRICS etc.
Well done!
Typical of the conquerors is to claim all the social assets of the conquered as Young Global Leaders of the WEF. A telling sign of social delusions in this day and age.
@ Simplicius:
I follow Sasha Latypova and believe she does good work on the virus/vaccine front, but I differ with her position on Russia, which is basically that they're part of the cabal, using some of the same arguments you have countered with this article. I wonder if you've ever debated her on this, and if not, would you be up for it? I've tried myself, but haven't had much success.
I know a lot of people see Russia through rose-tinted glasses, but I'm not one of them. Realistically speaking, I think Russia gets many things right and a lot of that is attributable to VVP, but I worry about what happens after he's gone. I'd love to see Maria Warrior Princess in that role, but is Russia ready for a woman to lead them? One thing I will say, Russia is culturally in very good shape. My main area of study is their music scene, and by that measure Russia is doing very well indeed, having largely abandoned English lyrics and mimicry of western pop groups, drawing more and more on their historic roots for inspiration. A good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thZTZk09Cp4
The hut is shaking!
Following the CBDC discourse as a non-American THROUGH the American discourse, I think the base of the fearmongering is a very American phenomena where there are a lot of private banks that is more-or-less adhering to a central authority. In reality, most banking system in the world is somewhat more centralized than what Americans had in their country and what most people (in this case not just American) about CBDC controlling what they own/have/saved is already possible without CBDC. Case in point: Nigel Farage and the Canadian truckers!
Here I think London Paul further assesment was right: the dollar, in particular, would never went full digital because physical USD is what the drug lord, human traffickers, and all sorts of criminal use for transaction. The Federal Reserve would NEVER going full digital for this exact reason. Michael Hudson in some of his seminar revealed that it was indeed the US government goal to make US and USD the safe haven for criminal activity so they can replace Switzerland on that regard.
How do the Rothchilds and their ilk maintain the anonymity of their holdings etc when digital ID and CBDCs replace cash - whenevery penny a prol earns, spends, or saves, and what the prol purchases, will be known to the state etc ?
Is it going to be "for thee, but not for me" ?
Yeah, the more they try to control banking system through this byzantine dual private-public system, the more mental gymnast they have to pull. How do you even tell the majority of the population that they can only use CBDC whilst somehow some sort of cash economy being kept around?
I make my initial comment here before I finished Simp's article. Now that I do, I understand that The Federal Reserve is basically a private cartel masquerading as a public institution and that the dynastic-feudalistic banking families are indeed have their interest in controlling the majority of the population just like in the time of old. But that's the thing: there is inherent contradiction between their goal and the mean of it. Feudalism of the past survived because everything could be kept secret off of the illiterate peasants and citizens. Now modern nation-states governance has its public sector must be transparent to its constituency/taxpayers. You can fool the general population for a while but the contradiction between feudalistic secrecy and modern governance transparency will to its head. This is why Soros Open Foundation worked so hard undermining the nation-states and wanted it to be replaced by NGO who's more oblique and beholden to their financiers.
As long as the West keep the secretive dynastic banking families within their financial system, their CBDC will eventually be used for nefarious purposes. This is the particularities of the Western system that sets its apart with other civilization banking system.
The "the state etc" already knows, the vast majority ~92% of bank transactions are digital not physical notes & coins ~8%.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-worlds-money-is-printed-in-cash-bills-coins
Addendum: In regards to non-usurious Islamic banking loan, they've done this (at least in classical times) by making the "interest payment" either on a fixed amount or/and turned them into a physical commodities. So the problem of fiat banking/usurious loan can be limited by the fact that its interest payment is tied to a physical commodity, preventing debtor to become beholden to the lender due to uncontrollable unpaid debt interest.
Great sitrep, I knew the Fed was actually a private entity, but had no idea just how rotten it was until today. Lol should've guessed though. You know sometimes I think that if Americans were fully aware of what is being done to them and in their name, there would be riots on the streets tomorrow morning in every county, every major population center in the continental US of A.
That's precisely why SO MUCH effort over the years has gone into keeping them (US-Americans) living in ignorance.
Yes exactly, and that's also why propaganda is their last great strength
Nope. We will take it and blame Islam, jews, Putin, illegals or Xi. Defendin' democracy and all that.