Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,
The year was 1967. Ronald Reagan had just become governor of California. Aretha Franklin was belting out R-E-S-P-E-C-T on the radio. Marxist revolutionary leader Che Guevara was captured and executed in Bolivia.
And a restaurant chain called The White Spot opened its newest location in Denver, Colorado.
It was a popular diner; the White Spot served pancakes and milkshakes to customers for decades, and ownership of the Denver location eventually changed hands when an entrepreneur named Tom Messina bought the diner in 1999.
He changed the name from the White Spot to Tom’s Diner, and he’s been serving Denver customers for the last 20 years.
But Tom turned 60 recently, and he’s thinking about retirement. After two decades of cracking eggs and frying bacon, he’s ready to spend more time with his family.
And fortunately for Tom, he’s sitting on an extremely valuable asset: his real estate. Tom’s diner is located in downtown Denver in an area that has been heavily redeveloped.
Decades ago the land wasn’t worth very much. But in recent years, Denver became one of the fastest growing cities in the country. Property prices skyrocketed.
In fact, a local real estate developer offered Tom nearly $5 million for his land; it’s an ideal spot to build condominiums given how popular downtown Denver has become.
$5 million is a good chunk of money for anyone, and certainly more than enough for Tom to retire comfortably.
And that’s when a handful of whiny activists stepped and stomped all over Tom’s retirement dream.
After hearing about the deal, five local residents filed an application with the city to have Tom’s Diner declared a historic landmark.
And, if granted, historic status would mean that the diner would be frozen in time forever… and could not be demolished or redeveloped into condos.
Historic status would effectively render Tom’s land completely worthless; no real estate developer would ever pay him top dollar for land that couldn’t be redeveloped.
And that’s tantamount to theft– the city, and a handful of idiotic activists– stealing nearly $5 million worth of value.
This is pretty remarkable when you think about it.
It’s not like the land was some sacred Indian burial ground... or that Tom wanted to turn the property into a nuclear waste dump.
It’s just a diner.
Yet still, all it took was FIVE people to put together a petition and complain to the city– five people who felt that they have the right to tell Tom what he can and cannot do with his private property.
I wonder– if these Bolsheviks thought Tom’s Diner was such a treasured historic monument worthy of preservation, why didn’t they put in their own rival offer?
If it was really soooo important, they could have pooled their resources, offered a higher price than the property developer’s $5 million offer, and bought the diner themselves.
But no. Preserving the diner was only worth enough effort to file a petition blocking the sale of Tom’s property.
And this pretty much sums up everything you need to know about property rights in the Land of the Free.
It’s bad enough that you don’t actually own your real estate; you’re just renting it from the government, paying property taxes each year for the right to use it.
But now, with this neo-Bolshevism movement, it’s all about ‘community’. Everyone else gets to decide what’s the best and highest use of your asset.
If just a tiny handful of loudmouths believes your property has historic value that benefits the community (in their sole discretion), then suddenly your whole life can be turned upside down...
...just in the same way that other loudmouths feel entitled to decide what gender pronouns you can/cannot use, how much tax you should have to pay, or whether you should be able to use a plastic straw.
Tom got lucky. There was enough local media coverage and attention on this issue that the activists ultimately backed down.
In other words, these five people have graciously allowed Tom to sell his own private property.
I mean, this guy’s entire retirement dream… and the last 20 years of his life’s work… rested in the hands of some complete strangers. And there are countless people in a similar situation as Tom’s who didn’t turn out so lucky.
This story should really scream the importance of having a Plan B.
All it takes is a handful of noisy activists and a busy-body town council to steal your wealth.
It highlights why you shouldn’t have all of your eggs in one basket… and why it makes sense to consider holding at least a portion of your wealth, assets, and investments outside of your home country.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Monday, August 19, 2019
Sunday, August 18, 2019
By Jill Carattini and originally published at rzim.org
The places in literature that most often slow my mind to a reflective halt are usually intensely visual. Among them, perhaps surprisingly to some, are images from ancient scriptures that offer some of the most beautiful depictions.
The resounding cry of Isaiah 64:1, “Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down,” seems to leave a trail of the most desperate, sorrowing, hopeful faces in its wake, men and women longing in agreement. Fitting with Isaiah’s vision for a world that revolves around God as good and worthy king, his cry was a fervent prayer for the severe presence of a God he knew could come nearer.
Like the God for which he longed, the prophet’s words are intense, stirring, and intentional. Isaiah’s use of words—in fact, the entire genre of prophetic literature—cries out with poetic vision. As Abraham Heschel comments, “Prophecy is the product of a poetic imagination. Prophecy is poetry, and in poetry everything is possible, e.g. for the trees to celebrate a birthday and for God to speak to man.”(1) And that is to say, God gives us something of the divine character in the prophet’s powerful interplay of word, metaphor, and image.
As messenger, the prophet yields the words of God, and the poetic nature of prophetic speech reveals a God who speaks in couplets, a God who uses simile and metaphor, rhythm and sound, alliteration, repetition, and rhetorical questions. Any reading of prophetic speech requires that one engage these poetic structures. A quick scan of Isaiah 64:1 reveals a depth of interacting words and key patterns, and a metaphor that moves us like the mountains Isaiah describes:
If only you would cleave the heavens!
(If only) you would come down,
From facing you, mountains would quake!
(If only) you would come down,
From facing you, mountains would quake!
These few stanzas make use of repeated words and paired images to convey an intensity about human longing for the transcendence of God. The cry is not merely for God’s presence, but a presence that will tear openthe heavens and cause mountains—even Mount Zion and the children of God—to tremble. Set in the opening line, the Hebrew word qarata is as illustrative in tone as it is meaning. The guttural sound and sharp stop in its pronunciation contribute to the severity of the word itself, which means to tear, to rend, to sever, or to split an object into two or more parts. “Oh that you would rend the heavens…” “If only you would cleave open the heavens and come down…”
Significantly, this Hebrew word is most often found in the Old Testament referring to the rending of garments out of grief or desperation. Ezra describes falling in prayer “with my garments and my mantle torn, and on my knees, I spread out my hands to the Lord my God” (Ezra 9:5). The same word is used of David after hearing that Absalom had killed all of his sons: “The king rose, tore his garments, and lay on the ground; and all his servants who were standing by tore their garments also” (2 Samuel 13:31). The images of grief and shredded garments would likely have come to the minds of those who first heard the cry of Isaiah to God: If only you would tear the heavens in two and see what is happening in your holy cities… If only you would sever this distance that sits between us like a heavy garment…
But this act of rending is also used in the Old Testament figuratively, usually in terms of removing someone from power or formally tearing away their authority, as when Samuel told Saul that the kingdom had been rendered from him and given to his neighbors. Here, in the context of Isaiah’s prayer, the word seems to take on both figurative and literal qualities. Oh that you would rend the heavens like a garment and come down here, tear away our perception of authority and show us something real, your own power. The cry is clearly making use of metaphor and yet it is a desperate plea for God’s presence in power, tangibly and substantially—”so that the nations might tremble at your presence,” Isaiah cries.
Even so, whether uttered metaphorically or literally, the cry for God to tear open the heavens and come down is a cry no mind conceived, nor ear perceived how thoroughly God would answer. For those who read this passage in light of Christ, fully taking in the poignant image of the heavens tearing like a garment brings to mind the tearing of the temple curtain when Jesus took his last breath. “Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. And at that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split” (Matthew 27:50-51). The incarnation, the death, and resurrection of Christ was God’s bold answer to an ancient longing—the longing and the answer both intensely visual and unapologetically real, even as God’s longing seems to meet our own: “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem… How often I longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”(3) The vicariously human Son is himself God’s response to the great metaphor of a God who rends the heavens like a garment, a God so present that he comes down to be among us, causing the earth to quake at his own breath.
Jill Carattini is managing editor of A Slice of Infinity at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries in Atlanta, Georgia.
(1) Abraham Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper, 2001), 469.
(2) See 1 Samuel 15:28.
(3) See Matthew 23:36-38.
(2) See 1 Samuel 15:28.
(3) See Matthew 23:36-38.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Friday, August 16, 2019
By Brandon Smith and originally published at alt-market.com
You can bet that whenever you find people analyzing the root of a problem you will also find other people trying to derail those efforts with dishonest arguments. For reasons that we can guess at but are rarely able to confirm, there are some folks out there that get rather agitated at constructive discussion among their fellow humans. One of the most common tactics for hijacking the discussion of a problem is to suggest that it is “all pointless” unless those same people can offer a grand solution to the problem. This is Alinsky-style disruption 101.
The reality is that most problems can only be solved once at least a portion of the public is made aware of them. Action can only take place AFTER understanding is achieved, otherwise we find ourselves swinging wildly at shadows.
With that said, many in the liberty movement have offered numerous solutions to the threat of the globalists. The trouble is that the most practical solutions are the hardest ones. This is why so many activists get caught up in non-solutions and frauds; they desperately want to hear that there is a shortcut to victory. They desperately want to hear that there is a way to get rid of the globalists without sacrifice, or without them having to fight back directly. They want to hear that someone is going to fight this war for them, or that the globalist vampires can simply be de-fanged by an intangible technological marvel. They are looking for a genie in a bottle; a magical cure. It's not going to be that easy.
And so, the real solutions get buried by the hype trains - We're supposed to put all our hopes in a president that had his fortune and his image saved by the very banking elites he claims to stand against. We're supposed to believe he is supposedly going to round them up and arrest them (any day now) in a fantastical Game of Thrones maneuver? Despite the fact that this would be rather difficult when half his cabinet is loaded with the same banking ghouls.
Or, we're supposed to bet our future on the virtual world with cryptocurrency systems; some of which are built upon an NSA created hash and perfectly match an NSA white paper written in 1996 on digital currencies. We're supposed to believe that the banking cabal is actually threatened by these blockchain based products despite the fact that their value is derived only from branding and not from any qualities that make them especially unique from each other, as well as how much capital the same banking cabal is willing to invest in them and the infrastructure that perpetuates them?
We're supposed to believe that these currencies are anonymous even thought they are consistently proven not to be. We are supposed to believe they are a decentralizing force even though they are completely reliant on a centrally dominated internet. We are supposed to believe that central banking system will be made obsolete by them even though the globalists are avidly promoting cryptocurrency and blockchain tech as the next step in globalization.
It's interesting that the solutions to globalism most widely promoted end up being highly beneficial to the globalist agenda.
No, these are not solutions. These are distractions designed to keep people busy feeling like they are accomplishing something when they are accomplishing nothing. The people spreading concrete information on the dangers of globalism are accomplishing far more than those sitting around buying bitcoin or passing around Q-cult nonsense.
So what are the real solutions? Realize first that there is no solution that is going to satisfy everyone. For every solution offered here, there will be a hundred excuses given by people who claim it won't work, or is not worth trying. But at least each idea expressed here is one that the globalists are not avidly backing financially from behind the curtain, unlike the “solutions” mentioned above. So, to answer the people that claim the liberty movement has no fix for the threat of globalism, let's examine a few, shall we...
I've been talking about this since I began writing for the movement in 2006 in my Neithercorp days, and it's probably the most valid (and uncomfortable) answer to the globalist problem. Decentralization requires a shift towards less reliance on the existing system and more reliance on one's self and one's local community. This means people have to become producers of their own necessities, and they have to construct new economies out of LOCAL producers and buyers. This could even extend to decentralizing monetarily to commodity backed community currencies or barter.
People would have to start growing food for themselves, and providing a useful service which would allow them to trade for the things they need. Beyond this, a commodity backed currency on a state or national level could provide the “universal exchange” mechanism needed to allow for wider trade of goods.
Is this a step backwards into tribal times? Yes, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not talking about abandoning technology and advancement, I'm talking about abandoning the systems of centralization that are clearly destructive and are enslaving us. Look at it this way - If each individual is a producer then it's harder to take away their livelihood. If each community has its own trade networks outside of corporate chains, then they will be unaffected when those corporate chains go bust or disappear. If each community has trade mechanisms beyond the dollar that they can hold IN THEIR HANDS, then they will be unaffected if the dollar collapses. By building local economies with redundancies in place, they become immune to national or global economic calamity.
This kind of strategy takes time and struggle, and frankly I've learned that very few people are going to attempt it until they are facing disaster anyway. However, it is the first and most important step to defeating the globalists.
Randomization Of Government
While I am a proponent of decentralization, I recognize that human beings are social creatures and that community as well as law will probably always be a part of our existence. The best and most meaningful laws are those that are universal and inherently understood. Meaning, they are archetypal and inborn. The majority of people understand that stealing, cheating, killing, etc. are wrong and given the chance to commit such crimes they will refuse. If this were not true, humanity would have annihilated itself centuries ago. We only endure because we have a moral compass, perhaps gifted to us by some greater natural force.
The problem is, not all people have this moral compass. Around 1% to 5% of human beings are born with either latent or full blown narcissistic sociopathy, also known as narcopathy. They lack the vital psychological components of empathy needed to prevent the extreme abuse of their fellow man. They are a different species; a predatory subset, a hidden parasitic element that feeds off of and destroys normal humans. The globalists are a perfect example of the reality of this threat.
They are a group that has been shown to artificially and deliberately generate economic crisis, geopolitical strife, war, poverty, and genocide. They have used these horrors to enrich themselves by siphoning tangible wealth and property from the populace during times of fear and panic. They have also been exposed on occasion as sexual deviants and pedophiles with an occult secrecy surrounding these activities. They have revealed a complete lack of concern for the damage they do, and even revel in it as if they are playing a game. They are psychopathic children that see the world as their toy. Not only this, but they are highly organized.
Laws and the governance of those laws are necessary in order to deal with the people that cannot abide by the non-aggression principle and seek to exploit and destroy others. Of course, as soon as we put systems of governance in place to manage the law, the predatory class invades them in order to more effectively exploit and destroy. Career fields that guarantee authority and protection from scrutiny are going to automatically attract the worst elements of humanity.
The concept of elections and government by the people is not entirely inadequate, but it is obviously not enough to prevent evil people from gaining power and influence. Beyond this, government tends to seek infinite growth, and the pursuit of such power opens the door to the corruption of otherwise well meaning souls.
The only solution I can come up with is a simple one – A lottery. Government should function as a randomly generated structure in which the people involved are not celebrities but servants to the law, and the law must exist only to protect the rights and freedoms of the inhabitants of that society. This is basically how jury selection works, so why shouldn't government work the same way?
What if we had a two year term limit for every government position? What if these people were chosen every two years at random through an open source lottery? No more career politicians, no more lobbyists, no more elitist cabal controlling policy decisions because buying people ahead of time would be impossible. The chances of one person being picked for the same job over and over again would be slim. The chances of them abusing their power would be reduced because they wouldn't have the time.
Also, consider the implications for society as a whole; wouldn't this lottery encourage people to become MORE aware and more educated on political conditions, economics, the law, etc? Who would want to be picked for a position in governance and find themselves uneducated and bumbling?
That said, there are two criticisms for this type of system – One, it is not voluntary. And two, what if we fill government randomly with incompetent people and the cause a disaster?
To answer, one, jury duty is not necessarily voluntary either, but there are extenuating circumstances for not participating. Should people be able to opt-out of the lottery? Yes, but they should all be given the opportunity. Also, incentives (such as a fair salary) could be offered that would encourage people to participate.
Two, honestly, I would take a constantly rotating government of people, some of whom might be incompetent, over a longstanding oligarchy of entrenched psychopaths any day.
Remove Evil Influences By Force
The great weakness of the modern world is that people today have been conditioned to believe that good and evil are relative concepts. They think evil is all a matter of “perception” and that the things one person sees as wrong could be seen as positive by someone else, therefore moral judgments become pointless. This culture of moral relativism is no accident. It has been encouraged in popular media and in new age philosophy for the past several decades in order to separate people from the idea of inherent conscience.
If you want to understand what evil is, you have to first have an awareness of natural law and the voice of conscience. Religions have their own guidelines for what constitutes evil, and some of these are valuable, but as religions become centralized and bureaucratic they can be twisted to serve evil purposes. Ultimately, wise people know evil when they see it because they listen to their inner warnings.
Evil seeks to violate every tenet of natural law. It seeks to turn every function of human stability on its head in mockery. It seeks to undermine love, hope, family, safety, and especially freedom. Evil seeks to corrupt or destroy everything in its path. It seeks to gain not through industry and invention but through theft. It seeks to take what it should not have; not only this, but it takes a certain detestable joy in subjugating or torturing the innocent.
To explain evil, and more specifically the evil of globalists and elitism, in the most simple but meaningful terms possible, here is my favorite clip from the movie The Adventures Of Mark Twain, called "The Mysterious Stranger":
In terms of a scientific method for rooting out evil, the character traits of narcopaths can be identified through testing and observation, but there is no tried and true standard for finding a narcopath in early life. Those in the psychiatric community that claim they can be identified through brain activity scans are mostly charlatans with their own agendas. Some governments would also like you to believe that through neuroimaging they will one day be able to identify future criminals and “dangerous people". This is pre-crime science fiction fantasy, and it's dangerous.
The fact of the matter is, psychopathy and narcopathy are difficult to discover in a person without extensive questioning, background checking or until they have actually committed terrible acts. It should be a core standard of any society to ensure that these people never enter into positions of power and influence. And, if they do, they must be removed, by force if necessary.
A common argument made by people trying to debunk the fight against globalists is that we can remove those in power today, but tomorrow they will just be replaced with another group of evil people. This is a rather nihilistic viewpoint, but it has some merit. It is true that if steps are not taken by humanity to identify the sources of evil, and to decentralize the systems that evil people hide in, then yes, they would come right back stronger than ever no matter what we do. But, if we accept that evil is a reality, that it is psychologically quantifiable and can be recognized through observation of certain character traits, and if we remove the centralization that evil enjoys, then no one can argue that the world will not be better off.
First, though, the current organized evil must be dealt with. The globalists must be removed. And beyond all the more passive tactics for dealing with the catastrophes that they create, this will likely require conflict. It will require war, and make no mistake, a war is being waged right now whether we want it or not. We have two choices – fight back, or become slaves. All other “solutions” are a stop gap, or worse, a placebo.