Will Hillary Clinton clean out the nest of anti-Catholic bigots in her inner circle? Or is anti-Catholicism acceptable in her crowd?
In a 2011 email on which Clinton campaign chief John Podesta was copied, John Halpin, a fellow at the Center for American Progress that Podesta founded, trashed Rupert Murdoch for raising his kids in a misogynist religion.
The most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are Catholic, railed Halpin: “It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backward gender relations…”
Clinton spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri agreed: “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelical.”
What so attracted Barack Obama to Rev. Wright’s bigotry?
These latest emails confirm what we already knew.
Our elites, who are forever charging others with “racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia,” are steeped in their own bigotries — toward Southerners, conservatives, Middle Americans, Evangelical Christians, and traditionalist Catholics — the “irredeemables.”
Though the election is still a month off, the campaign of 2016 has already done irreparable damage to the American establishment.
Its roots in the nation it purports to lead have been attenuated if not severed. It has shown the world a portrait of American democracy at its apex that approaches the repellent.
Through the savagery of its attacks on those who have risen up against it, the establishment has stripped itself of all claim to be the moral leader of American society. Its moral authority is gone.
Even if Clinton wins, it can no longer credibly speak for America.
As for the national press corps — the Fourth Estate — it has been compromised, its credibility crippled, as some of the greatest of the press institutions have nakedly shilled for the regime candidate, while others have been exposed as propagandists or corrupt collaborators posturing as objective reporters.
What institution in America today, besides the military, enjoys national respect? And if people do not respect the regime, if they believe it acts in its own cold interest rather than the nation’s, why should they respect or follow its leadership?
We have entered uncharted waters.
Frankfurt, Germany – Most Europeans are quietly horrified watching Donald Trump torn to pieces by political piranhas while Wall Street’s candidate, Hillary Clinton, appears to be pushing for a war with Russia. She blames everything on that wicked Vlad Putin. How long before she will claim Monica Lewinsky was one of Putin’s famed KGB seductress agents (I’ve met a few) known as ‘swallows?’
Europeans, whose male political leaders all seem to have mistresses, would laugh off Trump’s awkward gropes and the outrage they caused as adolescent. Better gropes than a possible war with Russia over Syria. But Trump looks like a mastodon stuck in a primeval tar pit, ambushed by Democratic hunters.
Does anyone remember the Democrat’s young god, Jack Kennedy, who used to drag women into the White House linen closet, smoke a joint, and give them a presidential quickie? Lyndon Johnson’s Texas rough-riding, or Nelson Rockefeller’s too young girlfriends that did him in?
Deutsche Bank’s collapse could bring a Lehmann Brothers-type panic to Europe’s already deeply stressed financial system.
Italian banks are in terrible shape, up to their tortellini in bad debts. Their depositors are likely to be hard hit in any bail-out or bail-in. However, the rule remains: save the banks first, then women and children.
Meanwhile, across the Rhine, France’s political landscape is shaking. The wretched President Holland, who has the charisma of a wet croissant, is now the most unpopular leader since Robespierre – maybe even more so.
Like the US Republican rats abandoning their sinking electoral ship, France’s center-left wants to ditch albatross Holland but can’t find any candidate popular enough to replace him.
Presidential elections are due in April and May, 2017. The opposition Republicans have a so-so candidate in Nicholas Sarkozy and a good one in Alain Juppé. Sarkozy is still under investigation for taking campaign cash from Libya’s late Muammar Khadaffi – who was bumped off in what looks like a French-engineered murder.
Behind them looms the specter of National Front Leader Marine le Pen. Her effort to ditch the EU and NATO, kick out the Arabs, and adopt economic nationalism makes her a French version of Trump. But she is a far more adept politician and a gifted speaker.
Like America’s Republican oligarchy facing Trump, France’s political elite trembles before Le Pen. So does the rest of Europe as her radical thinking enflames rightwing parties across the continent. The Front National could replace France’s venerable Socialists as the nation’s second party and main opposition.
Spain is in political paralysis, unable to elect a government. In Brussels, the EU is trying to reshape its role after Brexit and find a new ‘raison d’etre.’ At least it will no longer put up with British sabotage. It’s what Trump would call ‘a disaster.’
The selling of gold we saw last week was another desperate attack by the BIS and some central banks, together with the bullion banks, to manipulate the gold market lower. We saw over 40% of annual production of gold being sold last week which is 1,000 tons. The physical market continues to be strong which I will discuss further on.
Western Central Banks hold less than 50% of official quantities
Obviously, the sellers had no physical gold to sell so they conveniently dumped all this gold in the paper market. It would have been totally impossible for them to do this trade in the real gold market which is only physical of course. Western Central banks have no physical gold of any quantity to sell. This is why they must fabricate paper gold out of thin air in order to dump it in the market. In total, these banks officially have around 23,000 tons of gold. I doubt they even hold half that figure. The rest is likely to have been sold covertly.
No major central bank has had an official audit of their physical gold in modern times. Last time the US gold was audited was in the 1950s. A proper audit would not just reveal that these banks have a lot less gold than they officially declare, but it would also expose the true position of their gold lending or leasing. Most of the gold they have left has been leased to the market in order to depress the price. But this gold no longer stays within the LBMA bullion banks like in the past. No, instead of the intelligent buyers of gold today like China, India and Russia take delivery. This means that the leased gold now becomes a paper claim with no chance of getting physical gold back. So what has happened in the physical market in recent years is that central banks have continuously depleted their physical stock by selling and leasing their gold with most of the buying having taken place in the East.
This transfer from West to East is the reason why Western governments and central banks are desperate to keep the gold price down. Official gold is no longer held in “safe” Western hands that are easy to control. Instead, the gold has been acquired by nations and people who understand the value of gold. These new gold buyers also know that it is the best protection against the total destruction of paper money that is taking place in our debt infested world. And the countries that are now buying gold are not sellers.
Russia accumulates gold in spite of economic difficulties
The Russian government, for example, has been expected by the West to sell their gold every time they are under economic pressure. But if we look at the chart below, the picture looks very different. Since 2006, Russia’s gold reserves have gone up almost 4X.
And it is the same in China. Official Chinese holding have increased more than fourfold since 2006 to 1,800 tons.
China has accumulated more gold than any nation in this century
But since China has produced and imported over 11,000 tons of gold since 2009, it is assumed that the official gold holdings are substantially higher than the 1,800 tons reported, maybe as high as 8-12,000 tons which would be higher than the official 8,000 tons that the US holds.
Originally published by AmmoLand.com.
Ft Collins, CO – This account of the recent, famous, and failed jewelry store robbery in TX, from a friend close to the source:
“Four armed VCAs decided to rob a local jewelry store in a neighboring jurisdiction, in daylight.
Two owners, who were in the store at the time, spotted the robbery suspects as they exited their car just outside the front door, guns (pistols) in hand.
Vigilance paid off!
One owner quickly grabbed an AR and took-up a strong position. His partner grabbed an AK.
Suspects entered the store and started smashing glass display cases with hammers. One pointed a gun at a customer and
5) In a lethal fight, the first five seconds are more important than the next five hours! Speed, surprise, and forceful action quickly overwhelmed these four robbery suspects. It was a precise counterattack that was never expected, and the suspects were not prepared for it!
6) ‘Down’ is not necessarily ‘out!’ Don’t relax too soon! Always expect even a wounded/grounded assailant to continue fighting.”
Comment: My friend sums it up well!
With our national anti-cop attitude, at the highest levels of the BHO Administration, these kinds of violent crimes are predictably increasing, rapidly.
When the unthinkable happens, you’ll be on your own. And, it doesn’t matter whom you are, as even Kim Kardashian unhappily discovered!
Be ready, or not?
Reprinted with permission from AmmoLand.com.
They say that Lysander the Spartan, whom I have mentioned before, used to remark that Sparta was the most dignified home for old age; for that nowhere was more respect paid to years, nowhere was old age held in higher honour. Nay, the story is told of how when a man of advanced years came into the theatre at Athens when the games were going on, no place was given him anywhere in that large assembly by his own countrymen; but when he came near the Lacedæmonians, who as ambassadors had a fixed place assigned to them, they rose as one man out of respect for him, and gave the veteran a seat. When they were greeted with rounds of applause from the whole audience, one of them remarked: “The Athenians know what is right, but will not do it.” – Cicero
Are you an Athenian or a Spartan? Choose.
“Sat srī akāl”. I said as I reached out and took the hand of the Sikh elder standing in front of me. His partner, a large looking Indian in a turban and beard stood next to him quietly watching us interact.
We chatted for a bit more and then moved towards my office. His companion followed quietly as we spoke. “How are your children?” he asked me as we settled in the area outside my office door.
“They’re well Harjit, thank you. How is a business?” I replied. Harjit is an older man and an established entrepreneur in the region. He owns a number of businesses and is well known not just amongst his own people but to the rest of the city as well. He is a leader in his community and the head of a large family. He frequents our business only once or twice a year but the rest of his clan, which is extensive, are here regularly.
“Business is good Francis. I see new faces here. Things must be well for you too?” he asked.
“They are steady, thank you,” I replied. This is a good, neutral answer. Sikhs, like many others, love to negotiate. If things are going too swimmingly they expect more of me. If things are simply steady they will not press as hard. They want me to do well and be successful but will always push for more if they think I can afford it. Coming to middle ground has not always been easy because we are from different tribes but we are both business men and alphas so there are honor and respect between us and as such doing business together has become easier with time. It is a good and honorable relationship that I have come to value and appreciate.
“Francis, this is my cousin’s son, Raj.” I shook the big man’s hand. I guessed he was about twenty-five to thirty years old or so and about 6’4″ tall. “He needs your help with a few things. I trust you will take care of him.”
“Of course,” I replied.
Over the years I have lost track of how many of Harjit’s friends and family have become my clients. One of my favorite customers was one of his nephews. When he walked through my door for the first time he could not have been much older than nineteen or twenty. He introduced himself to me and told me who his uncle was. He followed it up with: “If you could give me a bit of a deal I’d appreciate it. My uncle says I’m not allowed to go anywhere else.” I laughed and took care of him as was expected. Their honor and mine demanded no less.
As the fourth turning progress and our nation states further, deteriorate I believe that men such as Harjit will find themselves cast in an ever evolving roll in regions such as ours. Whether they realize it or not as political borders falter, whether due to economics or social instability, those with the strongest bonds in terms of clan and tribe are the most likely to weather the coming storm. Those at the head of these clans and tribes will emerge as new political leaders, the old guard having been cast aside as the result of fallout in a sociopolitical environment turned upside down.
NEW YORK – The attack on me by Clinton campaign Chief John Podesta is an attempt to deflect attention from his criminal activities in the former Soviet Union.Podesta is at the heart of a Russian-government money laundering operation that financially benefits Podesta personally and the Clintons through the Clinton Foundation.
To be clear, although I have had some back-channel communications with Wikileaks I had no advance notice about the hacking of Mr. Podesta nor I have I ever received documents or data from Wikileaks.
The charge that I am working for Russian intelligence or any Russian interest is also false. Don’t confuse me with John Podesta’s brother, Tony Podesta, who runs the firm that got $180,000 from Uranium One, the Russian government’s uranium company to which Hillary Clinton transferred 20 percent of U.S. uranium.
Just how much money did Viktor Vekselberg, a controversial Russian billionaire investor with ties to the Vladimir Putin and the Russian government, launder through Metcombank, a Russian regional bank owned 99.978 percent by Vekselberg, with the money transferred via Deutsche Bank and Trust Company Americas in New York City, with the money ending up in a private bank account in the Bank of America that is operated by the Clinton Foundation?
Wikileaks emails tie John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, into the money-laundering network with the confirmation Podesta had exercised 75,000 shares out of 100,000 previously undisclosed stock options he was secretly issued by Joule Unlimited, a U.S. corporation that ties back to Vekselberg connected Joule Global Stichting in the Netherlands – a shady entity identified in the Panama Papers as an offshore money-laundering client of the notorious Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca.
As a clear indication of guilty conscience, the Wikileaks Podesta file further documents that Podesta made a serious effort to keep the transaction from coming to light as evidenced by his decision to transfer 75,000 common shares of Joule Unlimited to Leonidio LLC, another shady shell corporation – this one listed in Salt Lake City at the home apartment of the gentlemen who registered the company.
Further research has documented that Viktor Vekselberg arranged for two transfers of unknown amounts to a private Clinton Foundation account in the Bank of America, with the funds passing though a pass-through account at Deutsche Bank and Trust Company Americas in New York City – with the first transfer made on Feb. 10, 2015, and the second on March 15, 2016.
Neither transaction shows up in any Clinton Foundation press releases or publicly disclosed financial statements.
Further research is that Viktor Vekselberg, in true Russian Mafia fashion, also owned Skolkovo, the Russian foundation set up to be a Silicon Valley counterpart Russia, designed to be Russia’s major player in the “reset” technology transfer scheme engineered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011.
Millions skimmed off Skolkovo in Russia
Russian news reports have documented that all Skolkovo Foundation money was deposited in Viktor Vekselberg’s Metcombank.
“Metcombank was the only commercial bank willing to accept the Foundation’s liquid assets in a bank account with the ability to immediately withdraw them without receiving a fine and with interest at a rate higher than the market average,” the Skolkovo Foundation said in a statement made public in 2013.
That same year, Russian investigators analyzing Federal Security Service, FSB, data in Russia determined the Skolkovo Fund misappropriated 3.5 billion rubles (approximately $55 million) allotted from the Russian government’s budget for the Skolkovo technology cluster’s development – a sum that was documented to have disappeared after it was deposited with Metcombank.
In reporting the disappearance of these funds, the Russian media reported Cyprus-based Winter luxe Ltd. holds nearly 100 percent in Metcombank registered in Kamensk-Uralsky, the Sverdlovsk region, and Winter luxe is controlled by Vekselberg through a chain of other companies including Mendo Portfolio, Renova Industries, and Renova Holding – confirming that Vekselberg is the primary beneficiary of a chain of offshore corporations involved in international money laundering that stretch from Cyprus to the Bahamas, ending up in the British Virgin Islands.
It turns out that of the 31.6 billion rubles (approximately $1 billion) the Skolkovo Foundation received from the state budget from 2010 through October 2012, just 18.9 billion, or less than 60 percent, was actually spent.
Predictably, the Skolkovo Foundation, in an official statement, denied any wrongdoing, arguing that once Russian government budget funds are transferred to the Foundation, they can no longer be considered as budget means, such that the funds can be used in any way the Foundation deems legitimate, according to Russia’s budget code.
“Among the offers made [to the Skolkovo Foundation] by several banks, Metcombank’s terms were just unprecedented,” Skolkov Foundation’s Vice President for External Communications Alexander Chernov elaborated in an exchange with Kommersant, a nationally distributed newspaper published in Russia, dealing mainly with business and politics.
Metcombank provided a 5.65 percent interest rate when the average market average was around 4 percent. This permitted Chernov to argue as follows: “The extra-high rate allowed the Skolkovo Foundation to earn around 80 million rubles ($2.6 million) in interest, so what violations are we talking about?”
In April 2013, Russian government authorities raided Skolkovo, arresting executive Aleksey Belyukov for graft, in a move that clearly looked like a scapegoat had been found, allowing the Skolkovo Foundation and Metcombank to continue their serendipitous relationship.
To date, the Russian government has not given an accounting what happened to the missing funds supposedly once deposited in the Skolkovo Foundation’s account at Metcombank
A Johnny Chung replay?
Between 1994 and 1996, Johnny Chung was a major player in Washington political finance and a star guest of the Bill Clinton White House, as a result of his donating some $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee until it became public knowledge Chung’s funds traced back to military intelligence sources in the Chinese government.
What is suspicious about the Vekselberg connections to the Clintons and Podesta is not only Vekselberg’s generous donations to the Clinton Foundation but also his close ties to Russian military intelligence.
“Skolkovo’s link to the Russian military-intelligence apparatus is not in dispute,” noted the Government Accountability Institute’s report entitled “From Russia With Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism,” issued in August this year.
The Government Accountability Institute report continued:
The U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth issued a report in 2013 (written in 2012) about the security implications of Skolkovo. The report declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for worldwide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.” Of course, technology can have multiple uses—both civilian and military. And the report noted that “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine.
Security expert and former National Security Analyst Agency analyst John R. Schindler picked up the theme in an article published in the Observer on Aug. 25, 2016, entitled “Hillary’s Secret kremlin Connection is Quickly Unraveling.”
“Schweizer shows that John Podesta sat on the board of a Dutch-registered company that took $35 million from the Kremlin [Joule, the same company from which Podesta got the undisclosed stock options],” Schindler wrote. “The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated—and for what—is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law.”
Schindler next turned his attention to Secretary of State Clinton.
“Even worse is how Clinton, Inc. profited from the Russian ‘reset’ that was one of the big achievements of Hillary’s tenure at Foggy Bottom,” Schindler continued. “Never mind that the reset was a disaster, culminating in Kremlin aggression against Ukraine. Hillary’s signature program at the State Department ended in unambiguous failure. Yet Clinton, Inc. did very well out of the temporary warming of relations with Moscow.”
Peter Schweizer, in his bestselling book entitled “Clinton Cash,” noted that of the 28 U.S., European, and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors or had hired former President Clinton to give speeches, concluding that Skolkovo benefactors ended up giving Clinton, Inc. somewhere between $6.5 million and $23.5 million – a figure that is indeterminate, and could yet be higher, because the Clinton Foundation has yet to reveal all its donors.
Finally, Schindler agreed Skolkovo was merely an extension of Russia’s military intelligence network.
“Therefore, it’s no surprise that Western intelligence considers Skolkovo to be an extension of Russia’s military-industrial complex—and its intelligence services,” Schindler wrote.
“A July 2013 unclassified study by U.S. European Command that surveyed Skolkovo activities suggested, in delicate language, that Russia’s Silicon Valley is ‘an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage,’” Schindler noted. “Stealing the West’s hi-tech secrets has long been a Kremlin forte, and Skolkovo is merely the newest effort to purloin our advanced technology.”
Reprinted with permission from Roger Stone.
The post Russian Mafia Money Laundering,the Clinton Foundation, and John Podesta appeared first on LewRockwell.
When your joints hurt or when you have a headache, you probably reach for an over-the-counter pain reliever like Tylenol. Acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, is used to reduce fever and relieve pain. Many of us have been taking these types of medications for years without much worry, but a new study suggests that too much of acetaminophen could hurt your liver.
Over-the-counter drugs could put your liver at risk
Health Canada suggests that over 4,500 patients enter Canadian hospitals annually due to acetaminophen overdose. Of these, 16 percent of cases are accidental. Acetaminophen is found in more than 700 over-the-counter and prescription meds. Which means, you could be taking more than one medication with acetaminophen, running the risk of liver problems.
The current daily limit for acetaminophen in Canada is 4,000 mg. Anything over this limit increases your risk of liver damage. The liver processes the meds you take, but if there’s excess acetaminophen, it starts accumulating in the liver, causing toxicity. Liver-related complications associated with high doses of acetaminophen include excessive bleeding, acute liver failure, and increased pressure in the brain.
At this 11th hour 59th minute while we’re still alive, we must do everything in our collective power as peace-loving citizens of the world to stop the madness bent on destroying life on planet earth. An unbroken stream of treasonous Washington neocons from the seamless Bush-Clinton-Obama ad nauseam regime is recklessly pushing humanity off the doomsday cliff. The DC despots have already lit the now burning fuse countdown to World War III against the Russian-Chinese-Iranian Eastern alliance. If we passively wait any longer, millions will soon be dying and our planet may lay in apocalyptic ruin.
The US government teamed in criminal tandem with the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC and all the rest of the MSM propaganda whores are belligerently paving the way to global war in Syria against both Assad and Putin. With echo-chamber demands growing louder daily calling for taking out both Russian and Syrian soldiers including both nations’ leaders, the neocons are throwing us all under the bus in a demented suicidal-homicidal bloodlust as an expedient, culling of the herd shortcut. It’s time for those who embrace life to oppose these Washington psychopaths and hold them accountable as traitors and the next Hague war criminals on trial.
The latest warmongering neocon troll with his recent Washington Post op-ed is Carl Gershman, president since 1983 of the US tax-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Recently he undemocratically declared that the United States should overthrow the Putin government. This over-the-top, brazen instigator is demanding the US engage in criminal misconduct expanding Empire’s longtime regime change policy beyond MENA borders to include Russia as well. If roles were reversed, how long before Washington orders a preemptive nuclear strike on Moscow if some warmongering think tank Russian zealous insider insisted that the United States government be overthrown? Only the bodacious hubris of US exceptionalism could come up with such insane double standards. Yet this sort of rhetoric is the preposterously desperate extremism currently making MSM rounds as gov.corps launches its full-on lead-up to World War III.
The US-led Western crusade to demonize Putin and Assad for their shelling jihadist-controlled Aleppo in recent weeks that has resulted in scores of civilians being killed is the main thrust for charges of war crimes against Russia and Syria being bandied about in the halls of Washington and its UN vassal along with mass media headlines. Journalist Finian Cunningham likens the crescendo of foul play charges bordering on hysteria from Western nations as eerily reminiscent of a pattern observed in former Yugoslavia and Libya prior to NATO interventions that only led to increased carnage and far worse humanitarian crises. The West’s war rhetoric is so diabolically twisted from the true reality that as the most effective terrorist fighters on the planet, Putin and Assad are now being called war criminals compared to Hitler and Mussolini in their defiance of the UN instead of the pre-WWII League of Nations.
Yet in this case the West’s humanitarian concerns are ever-so selective as the number of civilian casualties who’ve been dying daily for 19 straight months in Yemen totaling over 4,000 draws zero criticism from MSM press, only excuses. And this week the United States directly joined in on the Yemen bloodbath, firing cruise missiles from offshore US naval destroyers. The US Navy justifies this stepped up aggression in Yemen claiming that it’s targeting Houthi rebels’ radar facilities that allegedly launched missiles at one of the destroyers. But this is the typical excuse Empire uses for increasing hostilities in multiple wars around the world.
The duplicitous hypocrisy never ends. The oft-cited “humanitarian agenda” as a flimsy US pretext for propagandized media condemnation and subsequent military intervention are old Empire standbys. Yet the US and Israel relish in joining their other Middle Eastern axis-of-evil partner-in-crime Saudi Arabia in airstrikes indiscriminately slaughtering thousands of forgotten Yemenis, frequently women and children, as if their innocent lives are of less worth than those in Aleppo. To the fake humanitarians of the West, their lives mean about as little as the potential millions of us set to die in their next world war.
The US Empire never met a war it didn’t like due to significant loss of civilians. Instead it’s merely accepted as war collateral damage in the up to 30 million humans the US has killed since its last world war, 90% of which are estimated to be civilians. That means up to 27 million innocent lives in the 37 nations Empire has viciously attacked have perished due to the most warring nation that’s ever inhabited this earth (at war 93% of the time). Even more alarming is during the past 100 years, wars have been spearheaded by the American Empire to the extent that its unipolar power in the last quarter century has coerced and dragged 185 out of the total of 195 nations on this polarized (“you’re either with us or against us”) planet into current military conflict. Never in human history have more nations been at war and preparing for an even larger scaled global war than right at this very moment. Every person on this planet can thank America for the currently dangerous mess we’re in, now teetering on the edge of a catastrophic World War III.
These bottom line facts prove that the US government has a track record of showing little to no genuine concern for human lives, neither the psychopathic ruling elite nor the US-EU policymakers, least of all the Pentagon-NATO generals or the pathologically greedy war profiteers like the central banksters and their military industrial complex giants like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman and General Electric. To these heartless parasites thriving off the spilled blood of human carnage, war is simply a convenient means to a highly profitable end. Infamous globalist guru Zbigniew Brezhenski made it matter-of-factly clear when he asserted:
Today it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.
The context behind Brezhenski’s candid psychopathy is his awareness of a global awakening occurring now when the masses finally realize how they’ve been screwed over big time by the 1% elite. And you can be certain that that coldblooded mindset is behind every orchestrated war, especially the big one that’s about to explode any day, week or month in Syria, spreading quickly to the dozen other West versus East hotspots around the globe.
The globalists have recently given the Pentagon top brass the green light to releasing thinly veiled, saber rattling, overt threats against Russia and China explaining how the US military will soon be making mincemeat of them. It all began with the deliberate September 17th the US-led coalition airstrike killing 62 Syrian Arab Army soldiers and injuring over 100 more. Insubordination was displayed for weeks in advance by Defense Secretary Carter and all his wayward generals publicly defying their commander-in-chief and Kerry’s supposed peace proposal announcing repeatedly that in no way would they cooperate with the Russian military in Syria. That was a dead giveaway of things to come. The hour long coalition air attack near Deir ez-Zor last month was definitely no accident as the US liars feebly claimed, but pure premeditated aggression designed to destroy any prospect of peace in Syria.
It instantly sabotaged and shattered the diplomatic ceasefire reached on September 9th between US Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, signaling full speed ahead with WWIII against Putin. Then on September 22nd came current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford’s telling proclamation before an Armed Services Senate hearing, stating that establishing a long-plotted US objective of a “no-fly zone” over Syria would constitute all-out war against Russia. A couple weeks ago ex-admiral and current State Department propagandist John Kirby threatened Russia with “more body bags” and “attacks on Russian cities.” Additionally John Kerry issued the ultimatum demanding Russia and Syria cease bombing Aleppo or all diplomatic relations over Syria will be suspended. Russian Foreign Minister spokeswoman Maria Zakharova countered with the stern warning that should US military aggression towards Syrian forces continue, that it:
… Will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole.
Earlier this month yet more US airstrikes bombed a strategic Deir ez-Zor bridge to stop an advancing Syrian army and protect the terrorists. The US military insinuated that it may target more Syrian Arab Army soldiers in airstrikes, promptly met by the Russian military spokesman’s statement that Russia will not hesitate to shoot down American or any unidentified planes over Syria if they fire upon Assad forces.
Then playing tit for tat, last week Army Chief General Mark Milley’s bellicose boast that the second to none US fighting machine is ready to take on and defeat any other nations’ military forces any time anywhere:
We will stop you and we will beat you harder than you have ever been beaten before. Make no mistake about that.
That “I dare you!” war cry was carefully scripted and choreographed at the annual Association of the Army meeting in Washington last week with yet more generals spouting off how this next war [with Russia et al] will be far different from all previous US wars. Major General William Hix, a deputy to chief of Army operations stated:
A conventional conflict in the near future will be extremely lethal and fast. And we will not own the stopwatch.
The meeting hyped use of Artificial Intelligence and precision smart weaponry aiding soldiers on the battlefield with an instantaneously responsive decision-making capacity as ground conditions change.
Warmongering British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson warned that Russia is moving towards becoming “a pariah state.” UK parliament is contemplating sending troops to the Syrian warfront as yet one more illegal invader. The British and French are preparing to escalate their involvement, joining the US and Turkey calling for a no-fly zone (synonymous with all-out war) which invites a direct military confrontation with Russia that has deployed its anti-missile and anti-aircraft systems. Putin vowed to shoot down any illegal aircraft flying over Syrian airspace. Recall after Turkey shot down the Russian jet last November Putin began sending his sophisticated S-400 and S-300 air defense systems to Syria.
Another development this week is the West is now clamoring for a total ban on Russian media like RT network, the world’s largest television news network viewed daily by more than 35 million people worldwide. One by one dwindling sources of truth are being systematically censored into elimination where only deep state propaganda will soon remain available, a hallmark of every totalitarian regime.
On top of all those provocative words, the US Air Force last week decided to flex its muscle, dropping a couple fake nukes over the Nevada desert just to ensure that not only the American public knows but especially the targeted enemy and entire world as yet another show of mighty Empire military strength.
Those of us even half-awake have long known that the US war on terror against terrorists is pure fakery. Obama never had any intention of “hunting down” ISIS that he and Hillary in fact created. It was all a facade used to destabilize the Middle East, North Africa and beyond, ensuring that Iraq and Syria and at least a half dozen other nations including an encircled Russia and China become future victims of regime change and “balkanization” named after the US-NATO chopped up Yugoslavia back in the 1990’s as an example of what happens to nations that fail to submit to US rape and plunder.
When a year ago Putin had seen enough of Obama’s two-faced skullduggery and decisively came to Assad’s requested aid and began pulverizing the terrorists in Syria once and for all, suddenly the over-exposed Empire lined up on the wrong side of history was caught wearing no clothes, reeling in disbelief and seething in revenge.
It was similar to the egg on Obama’s face after his terrorists behind the false flag Ghouta chemical attack and Obama’s self-righteous “redline” had him frothing at the mouth calling for airstrikes over Syria that may well have ignited WWIII back in September 2013. But the entire world rose up against him and grandmaster Putin brokered the last minute deal for Assad to turn in his chemical weapons. But unfortunately, the US backed terrorists were never forced to get rid of their stash which they’ve repeatedly been using with impunity (and US support) ever since, the latest incident two months ago.
The billions of dollars that the Saudis, fellow Gulf State monarchies, Turkey, Israel and US-NATO cabal invested in their strategic MENA plan to secure an ISIS caliphate that was spreading so rapidly during Obama’s fake war against ISIS, all came to a screeching halt a year ago when Putin entered the war. Suddenly Empire’s primary regime change the weapon of mass destabilization throughout the Middle East and North Africa was in serious jeopardy. Their terrorist stronghold, their vision of a no-fly zone over Syria and establishing a permanent would-be terrorist safe haven was crumbling fast at the hands of superior Russian airpower in support of the Syrian Arab Army and their allies Iran and Syrian Kurds beating back the terrorists. By early 2016 it appeared as though the war might be over before the end of the year.
So the setbacks forced the US Empire to change its approach, cunningly engaging in months of diplomacy with Russia as subterfuge to bide extra time for replenishing its decimated terrorists and their supplies. That provided the diversionary cover for the illegal Turkish invasion in August to reestablish the terrorist supply line in northern Syria accompanied by deployment of US Special Forces at seven bases. Meanwhile Israel simultaneously began its own airstrikes on Syrian soil to kill Assad forces defending the southern Golan Heights border. The Empire and its terrorist-supporting allies were not about to concede defeat to Putin and Assad, so they proceeded on a course of deceptive trickery in order to salvage their prized mercenary thugs in efforts to desperately continue their demonic “war on terror” indefinitely.
Once confirmed that the US was never serious about reaching a peaceful resolution to ending the violence in Syria, Putin and Assad with their allies decided to go it alone wiping out the remaining terrorists on their own. After Putin realized the US had double-crossed him, the Russian and Syrian airstrike doubled down their bombing and shelling of still terrorist occupied eastern Aleppo with a vengeance. All the foul play accusations against Putin and Assad on hollow moral grounds by both American and European politicians are totally phony. They realize that unless their war is immediately escalated, their precious terrorist allies will soon be defeated and what would they do without a war on terror to continue manipulating and controlling their Western populations through fear of more state sponsored terrorist attacks and more endless bogus wars on terror. The excuse to keep implementing draconian laws that further strip away what’s left of individual civil rights for citizens in the West would no longer exist and ultimately the globalists’ one world government could meet massive mobilized resistance. Hence, they drum up their 24/7 propaganda war machine to the rescue, designed to unleash World War III timed with embedding their murderous puppetHillary into power to finish the NWO job to destroy America that Obama got a head start on.
Hence comes all those false accusations and bogus lies constantly slung at Putin for allegedly hacking into DNC communications and attempting to interfere and control the US election without a shred of evidence ever backing up their empty words. Edward Snowden stated that the NSA would know if Putin did. Like stale clockwork now, Hillary’s reaction to every WikiLeaks unveiling of yet more Clinton criminality is simply to keep dodging the bullets by repointing her blood-soaked finger back at Russia as her standardized cold war 2 march-to-war blitzkrieg. It worked for decades after WWII and it’s now again being frantically rolled out as convenient cannon fodder to get her elected and start WWIII.
The big difference between the first cold war and this current one is that last century Russia and the US respected their balance of power serving as a mutual deterrent, and it kept them from blowing each other to smithereens. The trouble is now the US megalomaniacal neocons in control have no qualms about launching preemptive nuclear first strikes against the nuke powered Eastern nations. After all, only the world’s sole superpower can expect to continue getting away with mass murder and constant ousting of foreign leaders at its own imperialistic will colloquially masquerading as American exceptionalism. And that exceptionalism extends underground to their luxurious subterranean bunkers, cities, deep underground military bases (DUMB’s) and transcontinental transport system they believe will be their salvation while topside a radioactive hell on earth freezes us over for the rest of us 99%-ers.
Rather than accept all of Hillary’s anti-Putin lies in the face of her already humongous sized baggage of scandals, cover-ups and untimely mysterious deaths surrounding the Clinton history, a far more plausible explanation for the embarrassing DNC/Clinton bad publicity is readily found in Bill and Hillary’s nonstop criminal past as a matter of public record. Rather than Putin exposing her bad news, the more probable truth is that Bill and Hillary simply had the DNC insider who leaked the emails to WikiLeaks whacked while walking home late one night from his girlfriend’s house last June.
Inside traitors entrenched in Washington have been getting away with murder and mayhem for a long time, JFK’s being a crucial turning point that opened the floodgate, starting with the systematic decade-long elimination of anywhere from 3.4 to over 3.8 million Southeastern Asians during America’s Vietnam War, and in more recent decades another 4 million Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, not to mention assassinating 3,000 Americans on 9/11 in order to jump start their PNAC concocted “new Pearl Harbor” launch of their preplanned “endless war on terror.” On behalf of the “Greater Israel” plan and Saudi Arabian Wahhabism, the US Empire has created terrorism from scratch. US citizens must finally realize that our treasonous US leaders have been in bed with the terrorists from the get-go, with CIA handlers creating both al-Qaeda and ISIS and regularly deploying them in every major terrorist event since 9/11 as Washington’s bloodthirsty mercenary proxy war allies for nearly four consecutive decades now. More WikiLeaks emails released earlier this week from 2014 show that Hillary was fully aware that US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both providing financial and logistical support for ISIS terrorists. Of course, that never stopped her from taking their money (20% of her campaign allegedly funded by House of Saud) and constitutes more evidence that she is a bona fide US traitor.
The evidence of the neocons’ genocidal betrayal is overwhelming, perpetrating endless war crimes against humanity by a longtime US foreign policy objective to destabilize the planet illegally defying and violating all international laws while systematically destroying nation after nation. Should any smaller countries insist on independently doing right by their own people and refuse to succumb to Empire’s bullying threats and demands, they’re either economically sanctioned to death, invaded militarily by proxy terrorists or GI boots on the ground occupiers in addition to their leaders being assassinated or deposed of. America’s crime days of unipolar global hegemony and full frontal dominance are over. But the neocons still don’t know it yet. But once the repressed wrath and rage of a longtime exploited, thoroughly oppressed, abusively maligned world just waiting for revenge is unleashed upon them, they’ll be forced to learn the karmic lesson of what goes around, comes around.
Since a military showdown against Russia would obliterate Europe as the major West versus East battlefront, that emasculated continent needs to grow some much needed last minute balls for its own salvation and finally break away from the ruthless rogue terrorist known as American Empire and join forces with Russia, China and Iran. This decisive maneuver would singlehandedly become the necessary game changer that would ultimately checkmate the out-of-control Empire and possibly avoid the preeminent nuclear holocaust altogether.
We must recognize the ultimate war is against the psychopathic ruling elite, that .01% of the wealthiest families on earth that have owned and controlled this planet for centuries. Their New World Order agenda consisting of an engineered global war timed with mass migration crises and economic collapse of their debt-based theft system leading to human genocide and one world government tyranny is the real enemy of all people and all life on this earth. Time to ramp up a global truth and reconciliation commission for the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Bushes, Clintons and Obamas of the world – a la the great Nelson Mandela template.
Every one of the international crime cabal wars has been preplanned and built on lies and propaganda. Before nuclear war causes extinction of virtually every life form on this planet, it’s time to stop listening to Washington and corporate media’s diabolical lies attempting to whip up a dumbed down, complacently clueless American public into yet more jingoistic wartime frenzy. Instead we must lock the traitors up as suspected guilty war criminals awaiting trial in international court. They’ve demonically had their long run misusing their reign of terror power to gain absolute control over the global masses through totalitarian oppression. It’s now or never time for us to fight back, for truth, for justice, for peace and indeed survival of both our planet and human species. We citizens of America must take the vow to no longer tolerate the US government’s wanton violence responsible for so much senseless murder, misery and suffering around the globe in our name. And we citizens of this world who truly value peace and cooperation between nations and respect the sovereign right of every nation to exist free from external interference and control from powerful hegemons like US Empire must rise up in unity to act now to stop this deadly madness from soon killing us all.
KINGSTON, NY, 14 October 2016—From Japan, Europe and the United States to China, central bankers are either taking actions to stimulate sluggish economies or traveling the world talking up interest rates.
This Tuesday, the Japanese Parliament passed yet another money-dumping scheme to revive its slumping economy. Despite nearly four years of quantifiable Abenomics stimulus and negative-interest-rate-policy failure, the government’s ¥3.3 trillion ($32 billion) in additional spending raised Japan’s debt-to-GDP level to 250 percent… the worst ratio in the world!
n Europe, with its economy slogging along at 0.4 percent for the first half of the year and the banking crisis worsening, the European Central Bank sent up more “boost the equity market” trial balloons this week. With Deutsche Bank shares having plunged to 1980 lows and 4,000 jobs cut, Commerzbank announcing it will cut 9,000 jobs and scrap its 2016 dividend, Dutch bank ING eliminating 7,000 jobs, and with European bank shares down over 20 percent this year, the ECB said Wednesday it would meet next week to discuss technical changes to its quantitative-easing program.
And, keeping hopes alive that it may increase the €80 billion-a-month government and corporate bond-buying scheme that to date has failed to spur moderate economic growth or sustained job creation, the ECB also hinted it may wait until December to decide whether it will extend the program beyond March 2017.
In the US, with Federal Reserve members flooding airwaves with their “rate rise coming soon” refrain, the odds on The Street are 70 percent that the Fed will raise interest rates in December (only the second increase since 2006). Yet, despite US economic growth since the recession tracking at its weakest pace of any expansion since 1949, Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker claims the US economy is doing “pretty well,” while Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren mystically claims raising rates will avoid a recession!
Across the global economic spectrum, the data read recession and contraction. For example, China, the world’s second-largest economy, reported Thursday that exports tumbled 10 percent while imports fell 1.9 percent. Therefore, despite claims that cheap currencies boost exports, with China’s yuan at six-year lows against the US dollar and sharply down against a basket of currencies, it’s weak global demand, not a weak currency, that’s responsible for the terrible export data. Indeed, The World Trade Organization forecasts global trade will register its fifth straight year of sub-3 percent growth.
Trend Forecast: The Bank for International Settlements warned of excessive borrowing, mostly in dollars, by emerging-market companies. When US interest rates rise and the dollar gets stronger, emerging-market currencies will weaken, thus dramatically increasing their debt-repayment burden. In developed nations, cheap money, not corporate earnings, boosted equity markets. Therefore, while a stronger dollar will initially push down gold prices, in a climate of equity-market volatility and increasing geopolitical unrest, we maintain our forecast for gold to remain a strong safe-haven asset.
So this is how it ends. Not with a bang, but with hordes of clowns running through the streets, frozen red-lipped grins on their white, dead-eyed faces, chainsaws revving, children screaming.
To paraphrase George Orwell, if you want a picture of the future, imagine a clown shoe stamping on the human face – forever.
How did it come to this? How has the “killer clown craze” (with the caveat that nobody has actually been killed – YET) so swiftly overwhelmed Western civilisation? One by one, our mightiest citadels have been stormed, from Walsall to Plymouth, from Sudbury to Loughborough. A nation – a world – is afeared.
The Internet, thank God, is on the case. In the spirit of investigation – for the sake of the far-future aliens who, millennia from now, will touch down on our cold, dead planet, and survey the rubble, the dust, the rusted, burnt-out husks of clown cars, and wonder what happened – we have studied the best research into the Case of the (Not Yet) Killer Clowns.
Which is the most compelling account of what we will refer to as the clownspiracy? Come, take my hand, and let us find out.
It’s an Illuminati conspiracy
Not only that, but it’s orchestrated by McDonald’s. We know this thanks to an intrepid whistleblower known only as “Bruce”, who writes about this and other Illuminati matters on his blog, the enticingly-titled illuminatiwatchdog.blogspot.co.uk.
Here’s Bruce and his 2013 treatise on “McDonald’s, Mind Control and the Illuminati.” Ronald McDonald, he says, is a “subtle representation of Satan”.
With a head of red hair and face paint reminiscent of heathen rituals, this classic image is little more than a farce.
In actuality, the clown was designed by the Illuminati to appeal to children in order to make them more susceptible to notions of Satan and hell.
And why the recent spate of clown sightings? Reddit user 911bodysnatchers322 says that clowns are a trigger for monarch mind control, which is the use of discreet symbols to force unwittingly pre-conditioned individuals to carry out a mission planted earlier in their heads.
In the video below, a guy is stopped for a “license check” – that is, a random and probable cause-free interrogation and inspection – which by definition is unreasonable and so ought to be unlawful but isn’t anymore because of a despicable Supreme Court ruling that effectively rescinded the Fourth Amendment’s protections.
The armed government worker conducting the random interrogation and search then proceeds to violate laws still in force. The man stopped asks whether he is being detained, whether he is under arrest. The armed government worked answers no to each but when the man asks whether his is free to go, the armed government worker says no – which is an abuse of his authority under the law:
When you are told by an armed government worker you are not being detained and are not under arrest, you are – legally speaking – free to go.
Or should be.
The armed government worker – they style themselves, rather ironically, law enforcers – is apparently confused about the law. So he makes up his own. He accuses the man (first) of having a “modified” exhaust. Then (second) that the vehicle’s exhaust is “broken.” The man asks the armed government worker whether he is a mechanic.
The armed government worker uses the “modified” and “broken” exhaust as the legal pretext to demand the driver’s “papers” (ID, insurance/registration) and then demands the passenger’s “papers” as well. Which – again – he has no legal authority to do.
The armed government worker asks, “Is that your girlfriend?”
“It’s none of your business,” replies the courageous driver.
“How do I know she’s not wanted?”
The driver correctly (legally) replies: “You don’t.” In other words, it is not the legal obligation of the passenger to disprove she isn’t “wanted.”
Hilariously, the driver then asks the armed government worker whether he “has a warrant.”
The armed government worker does not like being interrogated – the same insolent, prove-to-me-you-are-not-guilty of something techniques applied to him.
di Frank Shostak
È opinione diffusa che i mercati degli asset finanziari riflettano sempre tutte le informazioni disponibili e pertinenti, e che l'adeguamento alle nuove informazioni sia praticamente istantaneo. Questo modo di pensare, che è conosciuto come Ipotesi dell'Efficienza del Mercato (EMH) è strettamente legata alla Teoria Moderna del Portfolio (MPT), la quale postula che gli attori di mercato sono tanto bravi a prevedere i prezzi quanto qualsiasi modello costruito da uno studioso del mercato finanziario, date le informazioni disponibili. L'idea che tutti siano dei buon previsori come qualsiasi modello, implica che le loro previsioni non abbiano distorsioni sistematiche. In altre parole, le loro previsioni sono proprio nella media. Secondo la MPT, utilizzando le informazioni disponibili, tutti gli attori di mercato arrivano a prevedere i rendimenti futuri dei titoli, e queste previsioni si riflettono pienamente nei prezzi dei mercati finanziari.
Le variazioni dei prezzi degli asset avranno luogo a causa di notizie che non possono essere previste in alcun modo sistematico. I prezzi degli asset rispondono soltanto alla parte inattesa di qualsiasi notizia, dal momento che la parte attesa di suddette notizie è già incorporata nei prezzi. Per esempio, se la banca centrale alza i tassi d'interesse dello 0.5%, e se questa azione viene anticipata dagli operatori di mercato, l'effetto di questa anticipazione si manifesterà nei prezzi degli asset prima che la banca centrale alzi i tassi. In altre parole, questo aumento non avrà alcun effetto sui prezzi degli asset. Nel caso in cui la banca centrale alzi i tassi d'interesse dell'1%, invece che dello 0.5% atteso dagli operatori di mercato, allora i prezzi degli asset finanziari reagiranno a tale aumento.
L'efficienza del mercato significa che il singolo investitore non può ingannare il mercato facendo trading sulla base delle informazioni disponibili. Ciò significa che l'analisi dei dati passati è di poco aiuto, dal momento che qualsiasi informazione presente è già contenuta nei prezzi degli asset. I sostenitori della MPT affermano che se i dati passati non contenessero informazioni per la previsione dei prezzi futuri, allora ne consegue che non esiste alcuna ragione nel prestare attenzione all'analisi dei fondamentali. Basterà una semplice strategia di acquisti casuali, come affermato da uno dei pionieri della MPT, Burton G. Malkiel, nel suo famoso libro A Random Walk Down Wall Street:
La teoria sostiene che il mercato sembra aggiustarsi in modo rapido alle informazioni sui singoli titoli e all'economia in generale, che nessuna tecnica di selezione di un portfolio -- né un'analisi tecnica né un'analisi dei fondamentali -- può sempre superare una strategia di "buy & hold" di un gruppo diversificato di titoli.
Di conseguenza Malkiel suggerisce anche che,
Una scimmia bendata che lancia freccette sulle pagine finanziarie dei giornali, potrebbe selezionare un portfolio tanto buono quanto quello suggerito da un esperto armato di dati e analisi.
Secondo questo modo di pensare, i prezzi della borsa si muovono in risposta ad informazioni nuove ed inaspettate. Dal momento che, per definizione, l'imprevedibile non può essere conosciuto, ciò implica che le probabilità di anticipare la direzione generale del mercato sono buone come quelle di chiunque altro. Quindi poiché la direzione futura del mercato azionario non può essere conosciuta, allora l'unico modo per guadagnare rendimenti superiori alla media è quello di assumere un rischio maggiore.
Un titolo il cui rendimento non dovrebbe discostarsi significativamente dalla sua media storica, è definito come avente un basso rischio. Un titolo i cui rendimenti sono volatili di anno in anno, è considerato rischioso. La MPT presuppone che gli investitori siano avversi al rischio e vogliano rendimenti elevati e garantiti. Per soddisfare questa ipotesi la MPT istruisce gli investitori su come combinare le azioni nei loro portfoli per avere il minor il rischio compatibile con il ritorno che cercano. La MPT mostra che se un investitore vuole ridurre il rischio di un investimento, dovrebbe diversificare.
Si consideri il seguente esempio:
Attività A Attività B
Tempo freddo 20% -10%
Tempo caldo -10% 20%
Supponiamo che, in media, la metà del tempo faccia freddo e la metà del tempo faccia caldo. Secondo la tabella, gli investimenti nell'Attività A produrranno un rendimento del 20% durante il periodo di freddo e nella stagione calda produrranno una perdita del 10%. In media, il rendimento nell'investimento in A sarà del 5%. Lo stesso risultato lo si ottiene con gli investimenti nell'Attività B.
La MPT suggerisce, quindi, che se l'investitore diversifica e investe un dollaro in A e un dollaro in B, allora avrà garantito un rendimento del 5% indipendentemente dalle condizioni atmosferiche. Nella stagione calda, un dollaro investito in B produrrà un rendimento del 20%, mentre un dollaro investito in A produrrà una perdita del 10%. Il rendimento totale degli investitori su due dollari investiti in A e B sarà del 5%. Lo stesso risultato viene ottenuto durante il periodo freddo. Questo esempio dimostra che attraverso la magia della diversificazione, indipendentemente dalle condizioni meteorologiche, si può ottenere un rendimento del 5% senza rischi sugli investimenti.
Ciò deve essere ponderato con il fatto che i due investimenti A e B sono altamente rischiosi, perché la frequenza di freddo o caldo in un determinato anno non può essere sempre accertata. Tutto ciò che sappiamo è che, in media, per un periodo di tempo prolungato, la metà del tempo farà freddo e l'altra metà del tempo farà caldo. Questo, tuttavia, non significa che ogni anno le cose andranno così. Questo esempio mostra che fino a quando le attività sono influenzate in modo diverso da determinati fattori, c'è un posto per la diversificazione che eliminerà il rischio.
L'idea di base della MPT è che può essere creato un portfolio di azioni volatili, cioè titoli rischiosi, e questo a sua volta porterà alla riduzione del rischio complessivo. Il principio guida per mettere insieme queste azioni è che ognuna di esse rappresenta attività che sono influenzate diversamente da determinati fattori. Una volta combinate, queste differenze si annulleranno a vicenda, riducendo così il rischio totale.
La teoria indica che il rischio può essere suddiviso in due parti. La prima parte è associata con la tendenza dei rendimenti su un'azione che si muove nella stessa direzione del mercato generale. L'altra parte riguarda fattori peculiari di un'azienda in particolare. La prima parte è etichettata come rischio sistemico, mentre la seconda parte come rischio non-sistemico. Secondo la MPT, attraverso la diversificazione solo il rischio non-sistemico viene eliminato. Il rischio sistemico non può essere rimosso attraverso la diversificazione. Di conseguenza, si ritiene che il rendimento di un qualsiasi portfolio sarà sempre legato al rischio sistemico, cioè, maggiore sarà il rischio sistematico maggiore sarà il rendimento.
Il rischio sistemico delle azioni cattura la reazione delle singole azioni rispetto all'andamento generale del mercato. Alcune azioni tendono ad essere più sensibili ai movimenti del mercato, mentre altre mostrano minore sensibilità. La sensibilità relativa ai movimenti del mercato viene stimata mediante metodi statistici ed è nota come beta. (Beta è la descrizione numerica del rischio sistemico.) Se un titolo ha un beta di 2, significa che in media oscilla il doppio rispetto al mercato. Se il mercato sale del 10%, quella particolare azione tende a salire del 20%. Se, tuttavia, l'azione ha un beta dello 0.5%, allora tenderà ad essere più stabile rispetto al mercato.
Il quadro teorico della MPT ha senso?
Il problema principale con la MPT è che presuppone che tutti gli attori di mercato arrivino ad una previsione delle aspettative razionali. Questo, però, significa che tutti gli attori di mercato hanno le stesse aspettative sui rendimenti futuri dei titoli. Ma se gli attori di mercato possiedono aspettative omogenee, allora perché dovrebbero esserci scambi? Dopo tutto, lo scambio implica l'esistenza di aspettative eterogenee. Questa è l'essenza stessa dei mercati toro e orso. L'acquirente si aspetta un aumento del prezzo dell'asset, mentre il venditore si aspetta un calo del prezzo.
Anche se dovessimo accettare il fatto che la tecnologia moderna consente a tutti gli attori di mercato parità d'accesso alle notizie, c'è ancora la questione dell'interpretazione delle notizie. Il quadro della MPT implica che gli operatori di mercato abbiano la stessa conoscenza. Le previsioni degli attori di mercato riguardo i prezzi degli asset sono raggruppate attorno al valore reale, con deviazioni distribuite in modo casuale, il che implica che gli utili o le perdite sono fenomeni casuali.
Inoltre dal momento che, in media, tutti conoscono il valore intrinseco reale, allora nessuno dovrebbe imparare dagli errori del passato poiché questi errori sono casuali e quindi ogni forma d'apprendimento sarebbe inutile. Tuttavia, se ogni individuo ha una conoscenza diversa, allora questa differenza avrà un effetto sulla propria previsione. Un successo o un fallimento nel prevedere i prezzi degli asset non sarà del tutto casuale, come suggerisce la MPT, ma dovrà anche essere attribuito alla conoscenza di ogni individuo. Nelle parole di Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
Se la conoscenza di tutti fosse identica a quella di tutti gli altri, nessuno dovrebbe comunicare con qualcun altro. Che gli uomini comunichino, invece, dimostra che essi presumono che la loro conoscenza non sia identica.
Il quadro teorico della MPT dà anche l'impressione che il mercato azionario possa esistere separatamente dal mondo reale. Tuttavia il mercato azionario non ha una vita propria. È per questo che un investimento in azioni dev'essere considerato come un investimento in imprese in quanto tali, e non solo come un investimento in azioni. Su questo argomento Rothbard disse, a p.79 di “America’s Great Depression”, che "il mercato azionario tende a riflettere gli sviluppi nel mondo degli affari reali."
Diventando un investitore in un'azienda, un individuo si impegna in un'attività imprenditoriale. Impegna il suo capitale al fine di soddisfare i bisogni più urgenti dei consumatori.
Per un imprenditore il criterio ultimo per investire il suo capitale, è quello d'impiegarlo in quelle attività che producono beni e servizi che sono sulla lista delle priorità dei consumatori. È questo sforzo di soddisfare le esigenze più urgenti dei consumatori che produce profitti, ed è solo questo che guida gli imprenditori. Secondo Ludwig von Mises in Human Action:
Le operazioni di borsa non producono né utili né perdite, ma sono solo la consumazione di utili e perdite derivanti dal commercio e dalla produzione. Questi profitti e perdite, il risultato dell'approvazione o la disapprovazione degli investimenti effettuati in passato da parte della popolazione, vengono resi visibili dal mercato azionario. Il fatturato sul mercato azionario non influenza la popolazione. Al contrario, la sua reazione erutta di fronte al modo in cui gli investitori organizzano le attività produttive che determinano la struttura dei prezzi dei titoli. In definitiva, è l'atteggiamento dei consumatori che fa salire alcune azioni e scendere altre.
È quindi lecito sostenere che le informazioni passate sono completamente incorporate nei prezzi e pertanto ininfluenti? È anche lecito chiedersi se la durata e la forza degli effetti delle varie cause possono essere scontate dagli attori di mercato.
Ad esempio, secondo la MPT un ribasso atteso dei tassi d'interessi e promulgato dalla banca centrale, pur essendo considerato come una notizia vecchia e quindi scevra da effetti reali, metterà in moto il processo del ciclo boom/bust. Inoltre una volta che si mettono in moto varie cause, esse inizialmente influenzano solamente il reddito reale di alcuni individui. Col passare del tempo, però, l'effetto di queste cause si estende lungo un più ampio spettro d'individui.
Ovviamente questi cambiamenti nei redditi reali degli individui porteranno a cambiamenti nei prezzi relativi degli asset. Quindi è alquanto discutibile suggerire che in qualche modo il mercato integrerà rapidamente tutti i futuri cambiamenti delle varie cause presenti, senza dirci come accadrà il tutto.
Bisogna capire che i mercati sono composti da singoli investitori che necessitano di tempo per capire le implicazioni delle varie cause e le loro implicazioni per i prezzi degli asset finanziari.
Anche se una causa particolare viene anticipata dal mercato, ciò non significa che la si è capita correttamente e quindi scontata. È difficile immaginare che l'effetto di una causa particolare, che inizia con un paio d'individui e poi si diffonde nel corso del tempo attraverso molti individui, possa essere valutata e compresa istantaneamente.
Semmai ciò fosse vero, vorrebbe dire che gli operatori di mercato sono in grado di valutare immediatamente le risposte future dei consumatori e quindi rispondere ad una determinata causa. Questo, naturalmente, significherebbe che gli operatori di mercato non solo conoscerebbero le preferenze dei consumatori, ma anche come queste preferenze potrebbero cambiare. Si noti, però, che le preferenze dei consumatori non possono essere rivelate prima che i consumatori abbiano agito.
Abbiamo visto che l'idea di base della MPT è che un portfolio di azioni volatili, cioè titoli rischiosi, possono essere combinati insieme e questo a sua volta porterà alla riduzione del rischio complessivo. Il principio guida per combinare le azioni è che ogni azione rappresenta attività che sono affette diversamente da determinati fattori. Una volta combinate, queste differenze si annullano a vicenda, riducendo così il rischio totale. Tuttavia, ciò non necessariamente funziona sempre così. Durante una grande crisi finanziaria diversi asset che normalmente hanno avuto una correlazione inversa, diventano correlati positivamente e scendono di prezzo insieme.
Nel momento in cui la priorità negli investimenti diventa la riduzione del rischio piuttosto che il raggiungimento del più alto profitto possibile, allora possono emergere tutti i tipi di strane decisioni. Per esempio, seguendo rigorosamente la MPT, si può deliberatamente investire in un asset che offre un rendimento negativo al fine di ridurre il rischio complessivo del portfolio. Tuttavia, nessun investitore sano di mente sceglierebbe deliberatamente un investimento non performante. È solo l'emergere di condizioni non propriamente previste dall'investitore che portano ad un cattivo investimento.
Gli utili sono fenomeni casuali?
I sostenitori della MPT affermano che il messaggio principale del loro quadro di riferimento è che i profitti eccessivi non possono essere garantiti da informazioni pubbliche. Sostengono che qualsiasi metodo efficace di fare profitti alla fine diventa controproducente.
È vero che i profitti in quanto tali non possono mai essere un fenomeno sostenibile, ma le ragioni di ciò non sono quelle presentate dalla MPT. L'utile emerge una volta che un imprenditore scopre che i prezzi di alcuni fattori sono sottovalutati rispetto al valore potenziale dei prodotti che questi fattori, una volta utilizzati, potrebbero produrre.
Riconoscendo la discrepanza e ponendovi rimedio, un imprenditore rimuove la discrepanza, cioè, elimina il potenziale per un ulteriore profitto. Secondo Murray N. Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State:
Ogni imprenditore, quindi, investe in un processo perché si aspetta di realizzare un profitto, vale a dire, perché crede che il mercato abbia sottovalutato e sotto capitalizzato i fattori in relazione ai loro rendimenti futuri.
Comprendere l'esistenza di potenziali profitti significa che un imprenditore aveva una particolare conoscenza che gli altri non avevano.
Questa conoscenza unica significa che i profitti non sono il risultato di eventi casuali, come suggerisce la MPT. Affinché un imprenditore possa fare profitti, deve impegnarsi nella pianificazione e nell'anticipo delle preferenze dei consumatori. Di conseguenza, faranno profitti quegli imprenditori che si distinguono nella loro previsione delle preferenze future dei consumatori.
La pianificazione e la ricerca, tuttavia, non possono mai garantire un profitto. Vari eventi imprevisti possono sconvolgere le previsioni imprenditoriali. Gli errori che portano a perdite per l'economia di mercato, sono una parte essenziale degli "strumenti di navigazione" con cui scandagliare il processo di allocazione delle risorse in un ambiente economico incerto.
L'incertezza è parte dell'animo umano, e costringe gli individui ad adottare posizioni attive piuttosto che rassegnarsi alla passività, come invece implica la MPT.
Il quadro della MPT vede l'atto dell'investimento come un gioco d'azzardo. Nelle parole di Ludwig von Mises in Human Action:
Una fallacia popolare considera il profitto imprenditoriale una ricompensa per l'assunzione di rischi. L'imprenditore viene considerato come un giocatore che investe in una lotteria, dopo aver pesato le possibilità favorevoli di vincere un premio contro le probabilità sfavorevoli di perdere la sua quota. Questa opinione si manifesta più chiaramente nella descrizione delle operazioni di borsa come una sorta di gioco d'azzardo.
Allora Mises suggerisce:
Ogni parola di questo ragionamento è falsa. Il proprietario del capitale non sceglie tra gli investimenti più rischiosi, meno rischiosi e sicuri. È costretto, dal funzionamento stesso dell'economia di mercato, ad investire i suoi fondi in modo tale da soddisfare le necessità più urgenti dei consumatori nel miglior modo possibile.
Mises poi aggiunge:
Un capitalista non sceglie quel particolare investimento in cui, secondo la sua comprensione del futuro, il pericolo di perdere il suo input è più piccolo. Sceglie quegli investimenti in cui si aspetta di fare i profitti più alti possibili.
Il quadro della MPT presenta il mercato azionario come un luogo di gioco d'azzardo, distaccato dal mondo reale. Tuttavia, come suggerisce Mises:
Il successo o il fallimento dell'investimento in azioni, obbligazioni, mutui e altri prestiti, dipende in ultima analisi anche dagli stessi fattori che determinano il successo o il fallimento del capitale di rischio investito. Non esiste una cosa come l'indipendenza delle vicissitudini del mercato.
Oltre a questo:
La speculazione azionaria non può annullare un'azione passata e non può cambiare nulla per quanto riguarda la convertibilità limitata dei beni strumentali già esistenti. Quello che può fare è evitare ulteriori investimenti nelle branche e nelle imprese che, secondo il parere degli speculatori, sarebbero fuori luogo. Essa sottolinea il modo specifico di una tendenza prevalente nell'economia di mercato, in modo da espandere la produzione redditizia e limitare quella inutile. In questo senso la borsa diventa semplicemente il punto focale dell'economia di mercato, il dispositivo finale per anticipare la domanda dei consumatori, fattore supremo nella conduzione degli affari.
Inoltre, nel tentativo di minimizzare i rischi, i sostenitori della MPT tendono ad istituire un elevato grado di diversificazione. Tuttavia, avere un gran numero di titoli in un portfolio potrebbe lasciare poco tempo per analizzare le azioni e capire i loro fondamentali. Questo potrebbe aumentare la probabilità di mettere troppi soldi in investimenti sbagliati. Questo modo di condurre gli affari non sarebbe un investimento imprenditoriale, ma piuttosto un gioco d'azzardo.
La MPT dà l'impressione che ci sia una differenza tra l'investimento nel mercato azionario e l'investimento in un'impresa. Tuttavia, il mercato azionario non ha una vita propria.
I fautori della teoria moderna del portfolio sostengono che la diversificazione sia la chiave per la creazione di rendimenti costanti e migliori. In realtà, la chiave dev'essere la redditività dei vari investimenti e non la diversificazione in quanto tale.
[*] traduzione di Francesco Simoncelli: http://francescosimoncelli.blogspot.it/
L’amministrazione gratuita della giustizia fu un principio della common law e deve necessariamente far parte di ogni sistema di governo che non è progettato per essere un meccanismo nelle mani dei ricchi per l’oppressione dei poveri.
Dicendo che l’amministrazione gratuita della giustizia fu un principio della common law, intendo solo dire che – prima del processo stesso – le parti non erano costrette a sostenere alcun costo – per i giurati, i testimoni, i provvedimenti od altro elemento necessario per il processo. Di conseguenza, nessuno avrebbe potuto perdere la possibilità di adire un tribunale per mancato pagamento delle spese del processo.
Dopo il processo l’accusatore o l’imputato erano invece tenuti a pagare una sanzione (su ordine del giudice, ovviamente) per aver creato disturbo al tribunale con l’accusa o la difesa di una causa temeraria1. Tuttavia è improbabile che la parte perdente sia punita con un’ammenda come conseguenza naturale delle cose, ma solo in quei casi in cui l’ingiustizia della sua azione legale sia stata così evidente da rendere imperdonabile la decisione di averla portata in tribunale.
Tutti i titolari di proprietà furono obbligati a partecipare all’amministrazione della giustizia (nel ruolo di giurati, testimoni o qualsiasi altra funzione che potesse essere legalmente richiesta loro) e la loro partecipazione veniva pagata dallo stato. In altre parole, la loro presenza ed il loro servizio nei tribunali erano parte dei profitti che essi avevano pagato allo stato per le loro proprietà.
I proprietari, sempre obbligati a partecipare alle attività di giustizia, furono senza dubbio gli unici testimoni di solito necessari nelle cause civili. Questo era dovuto al fatto che, a quei tempi, quando gran parte della gente non sapeva né scrivere né leggere, pochi contratti venivano redatti in forma scritta. L’espediente usato per convalidare i contratti, era farli in presenza di un testimone che avrebbe potuto in seguito appunto testimoniare gli accordi raggiunti. Gran parte dei contratti riguardanti le terre erano quindi stipulati in tribunale, in presenza dei proprietari lì riuniti2.
Per il tribunale del re la Magna Carta stabilì in particolare che “la giustizia ed il diritto” non dovessero essere “venduti”: cioè, per l’amministrazione della giustizia il re non avrebbe dovuto ricevere alcunché dalle due parti.
Il giuramento di una parte sulla validità della propria azione legale, era il solo elemento necessario per poter esercitare il diritto al ricorso in tribunale, esente da ogni costo (eccetto il rischio di essere condannata ad una sanzione dopo il processo, nel caso il magistrato l’avesse condannata).3
Il principio dell’amministrazione gratuita della giustizia si collega necessariamente al processo con giuria, perché una giuria potrebbe emanare una sentenza ingiusta contro chiunque, sia in una causa civile che penale, se avesse avuto una qualsiasi ragione per supporre che costui non fosse stato in grado di procurarsi un proprio testimone.
Il vero processo con la giuria popolare avrebbe anche costretto l’amministrazione gratuita della giustizia ad un’altra necessità: prevenire cioè il litigio personale perché, a meno che lo stato non limiti i diritti dell’uomo e paghi per i suoi errori – esente da spese – una giuria potrebbe essere costretta a consentire di farsi giustizia con le proprie mani.
Una persona ha un diritto naturale a far rispettare i propri diritti ed a pagare per i propri errori. Se una persona ha un debito con un’altra e si rifiuta di pagarlo, il creditore ha un diritto naturale di sequestrare una parte sufficiente della proprietà del debitore, ovunque possa trovarla, per pagare il debito. Se un uomo commette una violazione di domicilio, di proprietà o di reputazione altrui, la parte lesa ha un diritto naturale di castigare l’aggressore oppure di ottenere un risarcimento per il danno subito dalla sua proprietà.
Siccome è parte imparziale tra questi individui, è più probabile che sia lo stato a fare vera giustizia tra loro, rispetto alla parte lesa che possa farsi vera giustizia da sé.
E’ più probabile che lo stato, avendo anche più potere a disposizione, risarcisca i torti commessi da una persona in modo più pacifico rispetto a quel che la parte lesa potrebbe fare da sé. Quindi, se lo stato porterà a termine il compito di far rispettare i diritti e far pagare i torti, rapidamente e senza spese, la persona sarà soggetta all’obbligazione morale di lasciare tale compito nelle mani dello stato; ma non altrimenti.
Quando lo stato proibisce ad una persona di far rispettare i propri diritti o rimediare ai propri torti, e la priva di tutti i mezzi per ottenere giustizia – salvo ricorrere allo stato per ottenerla e pagare lo stato per farlo – lo stato diventa esso stesso il protettore ed il complice del trasgressore. Infatti se lo stato proibirà ad un uomo di proteggere i propri diritti, sarà costretto a farlo al suo posto, senza addebitargli alcuna spesa. E finché lo stato si rifiuterà di farlo, i tribunali – se riconoscessero i propri doveri – proteggerebbero una persona nella difesa dei propri diritti.
Nel sistema vigente, forse la metà della popolazione è praticamente sprovvista di ogni protezione dei propri diritti, tranne quel che le garantisce il diritto penale. Le corti di giustizia, per tutte le cause civili, sono di fatto chiuse nei loro confronti, nonostante siano costituite da catenacci e sbarre. Non potendo difendere i propri diritti tramite la forza – come, per esempio, costringere al pagamento dei debiti – e non potendo pagare le spese delle cause civili, le persone non hanno alternativa se non la sottomissione a tanti atti di ingiustizia, contro cui lo stato è costretto a proteggerle, senza spese, oppure permettere loro di proteggersi da sé.
C’è la stessa ragione sia per obbligare una delle parti a pagare il giudice e la giuria per i loro servizi, sia per obbligarla a pagare i testimoni o qualsiasi altra spesa necessaria4.
Il coinvolgere le parti nel pagamento delle spese delle cause civili è uno dei tanti casi in cui lo stato contraddice il principio fondamentale sul quale si basa un ordinamento liberale. Qual è l’obiettivo dello stato se non proteggere i diritti delle persone? Su quale principio una persona paga le tasse allo stato, se non per contribuire per la propria parte alle spese necessarie alla protezione dei diritti di tutti? Tuttavia, quando i diritti vengono concretamente violati, lo stato – che il cittadino contribuisce a mantenere – invece di onorare tale contratto implicito, diventa il suo nemico e non solo si rifiuta di proteggere i suoi diritti (se non a pagamento), ma gli proibisce anche di farlo da sé.
Tutti gli ordinamenti liberali sono fondati sul principio della cooperazione volontaria e sulla teoria per cui tutte le parti volontariamente pagano le tasse per il mantenimento dello stato, a patto di ricevere protezione in cambio. Ma è assurda l’idea per cui un qualsiasi povero uomo pagherà volontariamente le tasse per sostenere lo stato e poi lo stato non proteggerà i suoi diritti (salvo il pagamento di costi), né tanto meno gli consentirà di tutelare tali diritti i mezzi a disposizione.
Nel sistema vigente, gran parte delle cause che vengono dibattute nei tribunali riguardano banali litigi piuttosto che questioni di diritti. E’ molto probabile che un tribunale – sotto giuramento di decidere “secondo l’evidenza” prodotta – decida, per quel che possa sapere, sulla base di chi tra le parti abbia usato più forza piuttosto che in base alla ragione intrinseca dei rispettivi diritti. Invece i giudici dovrebbero rifiutarsi di decidere una causa, salvo venga prodotta con certezza ogni evidenza necessaria per una completa comprensione della causa stessa.
Raramente possono tuttavia avere questa certezza, a meno che lo stato consenta di poter presentare tutti i testimoni che le parti desiderano far intervenire. Nelle cause penali, l’atrocità di accusare di reato una persona e quindi condannarla senza che costei abbia potuto provare la propria innocenza a proprie spese, è così evidente che un tribunale non potrebbe quasi mai essere giustificato qualora condanni una persona basandosi solo su tali circostanze.
Però la gratuita amministrazione della giustizia non è solo indispensabile per la tutela dei diritti tra due persone; la gratuità può anche favorire la semplicità e la stabilità del diritto. L’ossessione per la produzione normativa verrebbe infatti ridotta notevolmente se lo stato fosse costretto a pagare le spese di tutte le azioni legali causate dalla propria attività.
L’amministrazione gratuita della giustizia farebbe diminuire se non eliminare del tutto un altro grande difetto, quello delle cause civili calunniose. C’è un vecchio detto secondo cui “molti litigano nei tribunali non per ottenere qualcosa, ma solo per tormentare gli altri”. Tante persone, motivate dal desiderio di vendetta e di vessazione altrui, sono disposte a spendere il proprio denaro per avviare una causa infondata, se possono così costringere le loro vittime – meno capaci di loro a sopportare la sconfitta – a spendere del denaro per difendersi.
Nell’attuale sistema nel quale entrambe le parti pagano le spese delle azioni legali, è necessario solamente il denaro per consentire ad una persona malvagia di avviare e perseguire un’azione legale infondata, al fine di provocare il terrore, il danno e, forse, la rovina di un’altra persona. Un tribunale, dove dovrebbe essere ammesso ad entrare solamente un accusatore scrupoloso, diventa così un luogo in cui qualsiasi oppressore ricco e vendicativo può portare chiunque più povero di lui e tormentarlo, terrorizzarlo ed impoverirlo per qualunque ragione.
E’ uno scandalo ed un oltraggio che lo stato accetti di venire manipolato in questo modo, come un mero strumento, per la soddisfazione della malizia personale. Non dovremmo neanche avere tribunali che si prestino a spalancare le porte, come fanno, per tali vergognose azioni. Tuttavia, il difetto non ammette probabilmente altra soluzione se non la gratuita amministrazione della giustizia.
In un sistema liberale gli accusatori potrebbero infatti essere raramente influenzati da questo genere di motivi, perché potrebbero addebitare alla loro vittima una piccola spesa o nulla, né durante la causa (che è obiettivo dell’oppressore farlo), né al suo termine. Inoltre, se fosse applicata l’antica pratica della common law, cioè multare una delle parti per aver importunato il tribunale con una causa infondata, sarebbe più probabile che alla fine la stessa accusa verrà condannata dal giudice ad una sanzione, facendo così in modo che il tribunale sia un luogo non idoneo per una persona in cerca di vendetta.
Nella stima di tali difetti, risultanti dall’attuale sistema, consideriamo che essi non sono limitati alle cause concrete nelle quali è praticato questo genere di oppressione, ma includiamo anche tutti quei casi in cui la paura di una simile vessazione viene usata come arma per costringere le persone alla rinuncia dei propri diritti.
1 Sullivan Lectures, 234–235. 3 Blackstone, 274–275, 376. Sullivan dice che sia il querelante che l’imputato erano soggetti all’ammenda. Blackstone parla dei querelanti come responsabili, senza dire se l’imputato lo sia o meno. Quale fosse la vera norma non lo so. Sembrerebbe esserci qualche ragione nel permettere all’imputato di difendersi, a proprie spese, senza esporsi ad una sanzione in caso disconfitta.
2 Quando qualsiasi altro testimone oltre i proprietari era necessario in una causa civile, non so in che modo fosse procurata la presenza; però sicuramente era fatta a spese o dello stato oppure del testimone stesso. Ed era senza alcun dubbio lo stesso nelle cause penali.
3 “Le richieste sono state stabilite nella prima fase del giuramento dell’accusatore, tranne quando la legge avesse stabilito altrimenti. Il giuramento, tramite il quale qualsiasi richiesta è confermata, era chiamato pre-giuramento oppure ‘Prejuramentum’ ed era la base della vera e propria causa. Uno dei casi che non richiedeva tale conferma iniziale, era quando il bestiame poteva essere trovato nella terra di qualcun altro e così le impronte sostituivano il pre-giuramento.” – 2 Palgrave’s Rise and Progress, &c., 114.
4 Tra le spese necessarie delle cause dovrebbe essere stimato un compenso ragionevole al consulente, altrettanto significativo per l’amministrazione della giustizia, come i giudici, giurie o testimoni; e l’abitudine universale di impiegarli, sia dalla parte dei governi sia delle persone private, dimostra che la loro importanza è generalmente compresa. Anche solo come una mera questione economica, sarebbe saggio da parte del governo pagarli, piuttosto che non essere utilizzati; poiché raccolgono e ordinano precedentemente il testimone e la legge, così da essere in grado di presentare l’intero caso alla corte e giuria in modo intellegibile e in breve spazio di tempo. Invece, se non fossero impiegati, la corte e la giuria sarebbero nella necessità o di spendere molto più tempo rispetto ad adesso nelle investigazioni delle cause, oppure di sbrigare l’intera causa con fretta e senza alcuna considerazione della giustizia. Sarà molto probabile la scelta dell’ultima delle due, così sconfiggendo l’intero argomento della gente nell’insediare la corte.
Per prevenire gli abusi di questo diritto, ad ogni caso dovrebbe essere lasciata al tribunale una certa possibilità di determinare se il consulente deve ricevere un pagamento – e, se sì, quanto – dallo stato.
Germany is smaller than California. Within the last two years, it has allowed in roughly two million Muslim refugees and immigrants, all by fiat. Having no voice in this radical demographic change, many Germans are fuming.
Last year, I wrote from Leipzig that Germany has lost its autonomy and sanity. Teaching at the university, I registered that all my students were openly sympathetic towards Muslim refugees, so I suggested they look harder at their government’s complicity in the US’s endless war against Muslims.
The best way to help Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians is to not kill them and destroy their countries, obviously. My students couldn’t quite go there, however, for that would entail them being “anti-American,” a big no-no in their vassal state. In the lobby of my university building, there was a banner admonishing against xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism.
The biggest taboo in Germany is Israel’s role in this serial destruction, and not just of Muslim but European countries. Badgered for decades with Holocaust guilt, no self-respecting German can bat a dark eyelash in any Jew’s direction. They cannot probe George Soros, for example. Though Germany was being purposely dismantled, my students could not see it.
Yesterday, a Syrian terrorist suspect was taken into custody in Leipzig, only to be found dead by suicide hours later. Of course, it’s a preposterous story. One can expose false flag events and planted stories while acknowledging that real crimes by Muslims are also occurring, however. As with the amplifying tension between blacks and whites in the US, Muslims are being deployed in Europe to sow chaos and disunity.
Millions of young, impoverished young men from cultures that frown on alcohol and the exposure of female flesh are being imported into a country of huge beer steins and nude sunbathing. What can go wrong? A friend of mine in Frankfurt gives us an update:
Things are slowly sliding into chaos. “Refugees” keep pouring in (600,000 so far this year). The Secretary of the Interior proudly announced that last year, only 880,000 refugees came to Germany, not 1.1 million, as was said before. The problem is nobody really knows how many refugees were never registered. The borders were open, they are still open, so people came and just vanished.
A good example: In the summer of 2015, just before the refugee crisis got into high gear, we had the G20 meeting in Munich. It was intensively protected with tens of thousands of policemen in Bavaria. During one week, the police conducted border controls, and guess what? In one week, they “found” 14,000 illegal persons—persons who had secretly sneaked into Germany. That was in only ONE week. They haven’t done that since.
Cities are changing—when you go to the central station of any German town, you see lots and lots and lots of foreign men—Arabs and Blacks etc. In Frankfurt, the police admit that they have lost control of the central station (in regards to the selling of drugs and petty crimes).
In Leipzig, a famous club in Connewitz called Conne Island had to admit that they have a teensy weensy bit of a problem with a new clientele—that women didn’t feel save anymore, that violence erupted on many nights, that women were sexually harassed, etc. Therefore, they increased security measures. Though they really tried hard not to appear racist or anything like that, everybody with two brain cells left knows of whom they were talking about.
But still, we are officially told that there are no problems with increases in violence, theft, rapes, drug pushing, etc. What Germans see is something different. Anger is rising. We have rapes and other incidents on a daily basis.
In Dresden, some German youths threatened Syrian kids with a knife. This was widely condemned by the media. Then some German threw some really big fireworks at a mosque. Interestingly, the press reported this as a “bomb attack”. Now, we had a “bomb attack” when a refugee blew himself up in a crowd with some real explosives, killing himself and wounding 10 people. Though this was a real bomb, we are told that we have to despise and condemn those who put fireworks at the front of a mosque (hurting no one and not destroying really anything—only the wall was blackened).
Yet in regards to the refugee who blew himself up—or his colleague who (luckily) unsuccessfully tried to hack people to death with an axe on a train—nope, he is not to be condemned or despised.
We are constantly told that these Germans who attack refugees, as recently happened in Bautzen in the east of Germany, are “the ugly face of Germany”—something to be ashamed of. Yet we are not told that before some 80 Germans and some 30 refugees in Bautzen got into a fight, that for weeks and weeks the refugees in Bautzen had been getting drunk in public, harassing women, shouting abuses at passers-by, etc.
And we are never, never told that refugees showed the “ugly face of Islam” or whatever when things like in Cologne happened.
The cloak of political correctness is very heavy and thick now, hanging over everything.
A few days ago, a Syrian extremist, member of ISIS, escaped a raid by the police, who tried to get him (he was just planning a—you guess—big bomb attack at an airport), and while he was fleeing, he was caught by three other Syrians, who held him, tied him with a rope and took him to the police.
Schau an—the poor bastard hanged himself in his cell in prison. Funny, how all these terrorists never seem to survive their actions that long. Of course, there are rumors that there is something suspicious about it. We will never know, I guess. The secret services are surely behind some, but not all actions. It’s a mystery—and the one who tries to look into it can’t lead to a happy life, so few dare.
Now the press is full with coverage about the “first Syrian heroes” of Germany. Funnily enough, only nitpickers mention that, according to German law, binding somebody is illegal (German law has some exceptions for people to act in self-defense, but this was no such thing).
A few months ago, three Germans did the same thing. They held an Iraqi who was threatening people in a supermarket with a bottle, tied him to a tree and informed the police. Oh, the condemnation! How could they take the law into their own hands! Shame, shame, shame on them! No tolerance for this!
But here, with these three Syrians doing exactly the same thing, it’s all good. All nice. Heroes. Brave boys. Hurra Hurra und dreimal Hurra!
Really, some people get really frustrated because of all this, some will soon turn to violence, and others are just leaving. We know that especially highly qualified Germans are silently leaving the country, going to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, anywhere else, to escape this change in Germany.
Because a change it is, and not for the better. It seems somebody high above is hell bent on changing the very fabric of German society. And most people are so busy with making money, looking after the family, etc. that they really do not realize that the dismantling of Germany is well under way.
Okay, we already have parts in cities where the police are losing control and women do not go there alone at night—but no, these are no ghettos. Not yet. And if, as happened in Bonn, a language school has issued a warning to its foreign pupils to not go into certain areas because of the danger of getting mugged or raped there, if the school says it has recorded over 250 incidents of pupils who had had bad experiences in these areas—ah, come on, are you racists or what?!
Yes, we have more and more mosques. There are former Muslims like Sabatina James or Hamed Abdel-Sayed who are criticizing Islam, but they are only fringe figures. When Sabatina James says on the prime time news that child marriages, which are growing in number, are horrible, she is told by our anchorman that not all are horrible. Some are good.
Oh, happy country! Slowly, slowly, streets, cities, the way of life, etc., are changing. Let’s ban pork in Kindergarten—all right. Let’s call the Weihnachtsmarkt (Christmas market) Wintermarkt from now on—in order to not offend anybody. Let’s make separate days in public baths—one for the women, one for the men. And lastly, let’s tell the Germans that sharia is not all that bad—in fact, it perfectly matches our Grundgesetz, the constitution of the Federal Republic!
It is really strange to see all this, Linh. Slowly, slowly, our country is changing before our very eyes. Now—in danger of repeating myself—I do not blame Muslims in general. They are just pawns in a game, as I said before. But one has to be willfully ignorant to not see that this path that we are on is heading towards hatred, violence and (maybe) finally civil war.
My take is that the East Germans will resist it first—maybe they make a putsch or something like it and get out of the Federal Republic. It is possible.
You cannot change the whole fabric of a society and think that everybody will welcome it. The German structure of Germany, its very own culture, would change in such a way, that it wouldn’t be German anymore. It would be something new. Some will resist that, and I guess it will be the East Germans.
As the CIA once stated—by 2020, we should have civil unrest in Europe. I guess we might even start earlier.
Of course, I sometimes wonder WHY the powers that be want the destruction of German, but that is speculation. What counts is the result.
And this is clear: Germany is slowly eroded, changed, morphed into a multicultural society with no roots, where all groups watch each other suspiciously, where the few rich live well in their gated communities, while the rest of the population tries to survive another day. That’s the way.
Still, there is hope because there is something called fate. And I guess (or hope) fate has some surprises for the powers that be. In the very end, things may turn out differently. We’ll see.
This is the way the world ends.
This is the way the world ends.
Not with a bang, but a…… bigger bang.
Gold prices “are going up” whether Trump or Clinton are elected according to most analysts in the gold market including former Libertarian and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Even Goldman Sachs, the primary significant bearish voice regarding gold prices is now bullish on gold in the medium and long term.
Ron Paul, an astute observer of the markets, warned in a CNBC interview that “if investors are looking for the next U.S. president to create stability in the markets, it’s not going to happen.”
The post Gov’t and Deficits Will Grow, the Fed Will Borrow and Print appeared first on LewRockwell.
[Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do We Need? By David DeGrazia and Lester H. Hunt. Oxford University Press, 2016. Xvi + 269 pages.]
The authors are well-qualified for a good debate, and the book does not disappoint. Hunt is a philosopher of libertarian inclinations who has written books on Nietzsche, human character, and Robert Nozick. In my view, he is a thinker of genuine depth. DeGrazia is best known for work on animal rights and on bioethics.
“Debating” in the title is a misnomer, as each author presents only his own case and there are no responses. DeGrazia mentions Hunt three times, but two of these are only in passing. Nevertheless, common themes emerge; and readers will gain a clear sense of two very different ways of viewing not only gun control but, more generally, human rights and the role of the state.
What exactly is meant by “gun control”? Hunt sets forward the main issue clearly: Some people regard guns as inherently dangerous objects; they thus have a negative moral status. “[T]here are other things often treated this way, including, for example, pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and various other psychoactive drugs. … When such goods and services are not prohibited altogether, like cocaine, they are subject to laws that make them less available, as is usually the case with alcoholic beverages.”
Hunt, in opposing gun control, does not rule out altogether regulations about guns. He has no objection, for example, to laws that prohibit the sale of guns to children or criminals. But it is the assumption that guns are a social “bad,” to be tolerated only grudgingly or to be eliminated altogether, that he rejects.
If guns do not have negative moral status, the case for a right to own guns is clear. Hunt is himself sympathetic to a Lockean view of rights, “which would seem to imply immediately that the state may not take away the honestly acquired firearms of law-abiding citizens,” but he does not argue for a right to gun ownership on this basis. Rather, even on a less stringent view of rights in general, it is eminently plausible that people have a right of self-defense.
If, then, one has a right to self-defense, does it not follow that one has the right to use suitable means to exercise that right? To grant that one has a right to self-defense but to deny effective means of defending oneself is to withdraw the right supposedly granted. Guns are often an especially effective means of self-defense. Unless there is something “special” about guns that violates people’s rights or exposes them to undue risk, on what grounds may they be prohibited?
DeGrazia does not altogether deny the right of self-defense, but he qualifies it in a way that will make anyone with a libertarian bone in his body gasp in astonishment. So long as the state is doing an adequate job in protecting your community, he maintains, one does not have an unlimited right to self-defense.
But what if police protection fails? If an armed intruder enters your house, do you not have the right to confront him with lethal force, if doing so is necessary to protect yourself? It is in answer to this that DeGrazia makes his surprising response. He does not deny — how could he — that situations of the kind just described occur. Even so, though, the state may prohibit people from owning guns if it judges that people would on the whole be better off without them. “I [DeGrazia] emphasize the devastating consequences of widespread gun ownership in a societal context in which gun regulations are minimal.” In sum, you cannot protect yourself if the state judges that too many accidental deaths, or other mishaps, are likely to ensue if gun ownership is permitted.
Hunt with great eloquence rejects this wide construal of risk. He distinguishes between type-risk, “imposed on the general population by a group of people: those who own or carry guns” and token-risk, “which is imposed by particular agents (including corporate bodies).” Type-risk, Hunt contends, is not a legitimate ground for coercion. The state may not prohibit armed self-defense because, given a large number of guns, some people will die in accidents. To think otherwise is “‘punishing’ (or penalizing)” some for the actions of others. “Such a policy is simply wrong, except perhaps in circumstances of catastrophic social collapse, such as widespread mob violence. Obviously, we do not live under such conditions now.”
DeGrazia, I must say, has a cavalier attitude toward evidence that goes against his anti-gun agenda. Naturally enough, he favors the interpretation of the Second Amendment that restricts the right to keep and bear arms to those in active service with the militia. I think this opinion mistaken, but never mind that. The point is not the position DeGrazia takes but that he does not find it necessary to discuss at all the evidence, amassed by Stephen Halbrook and others, which counters his view. In like fashion, he dismisses the well-documented work of John Lott showing that gun ownership deters crime. He relies entirely on critics of Lott, principally David Hemenway, but he deems what Lott has said in reply unnecessary to consider. Slipshod procedures of this kind do not advance the course of scholarship.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Prohibition kills a massive number of people in the United States every year. It does help make a few people extremely wealthy, but at the same time, it impoverishes the rest of us. This dire situation is mostly unknown, but it is not due to a simple misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about prohibition. It is because prohibition is nothing but a scam.
Steve Kubby’s foreword to the book demonstrates that the state has no moral purpose for enforcing marijuana prohibition. Rather, the state is actively covering up the fact that marijuana is not highly dangerous and marijuana has well-established benefits.
Readers will be amazed at how callously law enforcement and the justice system treated Kubby and his wife. However, do not forget that the state’s enforcement of drug prohibition laws give them the opportunity to brandish their weapons in an attempt to scare us. Such laws have also been enacted and enforced to suppress minority groups.
Jesse Ventura’s Marijuana Manifesto is a practical call to our attention that marijuana, i.e., cannabis and hemp, is not only far less harmful than the state declares, but it is also one of the most beneficial and versatile resources on the planet. As the author searches earnestly for an explanation for this irrational policy, he finds that large corporations that sell substitute products are primary culprits.
In other words, if you sell alcohol, tobacco, or pharmaceutical products, it is likely that you contribute money to groups named “Save the Children” or “Protect American Values” who ultimately spend some of that money to defeat legalization ballot measures.
I have been studying, researching and writing about alcohol and drug prohibition for over 30 years now. I realize that private prison corporations have also been donating money to these anti-marijuana political campaigns as a way to increase the flow of inmates into their prisons. Ventura takes the analysis one step further. He shows that federal prisons are renting out their prison populations to large American corporations for pennies on the dollar as cheap labor pools.
This diabolical practice not only spreads the benefits of continuing marijuana prohibition to large American corporations, but it also handicaps smaller businesses that are trying to compete. Ventura names Whole Foods, Walmart, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, BP, Starbucks, Eddie Bauer, Wendy’s, McDonald’s, and Victoria’s Secret as all being implicated in this scheme. The inmates are paid 0 to $1 per hour, they are required by law to work, and the corporations that hire them receive their slave labor and a $2,400 tax credit per inmate.
I am not against criminals being forced to do hard labor for their crimes. However, all that money should end up in the hands of victims as restitution or compensation for their crimes or be used to offset taxpayer money used for incarceration. It clearly should not end up as a competitive wedge for large corporations against small business. Also, clearly, the production, sale, and possession of marijuana should not be a crime because there is no victim to compensate!
Furthermore, the pittance that inmates earn most often goes to pay off fines and fees incurred during their trials and yet many of the inmates who serve their sentences and are released from prison then find themselves heavily indebted to the criminal justice system. This “system” goes by the business-like name of “insourcing,” but what it really is a modern form of slavery and crony capitalism.
Ventura is right up front when it comes to solving the war on drugs problem. Although he is not an anarchist, yet, his solution is to legalize all drugs, not just marijuana. He is right to consider marijuana prohibition to be the biggest problem in terms of numbers, but he also fully realizes that other drug prohibitions would keep all of the bad aspects of the war in place. We would still have the DEA, drug gangs and cartels, overdoses, huge prison populations, bribery and corruption, and violence and murder. So ultimately the goal is to legalize all drugs.
Along the way, the book provides investigative reporting on the Silk Road Conspiracy, what is really going on inside the DEA, and all the hypocrisy associated with marijuana prohibition over the last century.
Ventura is also very thorough about the benefits of legalized marijuana, which include medical, industrial, textiles, food, and fuel among other uses. While the government has yet to admit it, marijuana in its many forms has numerous medical applications. For example, we have long known that marijuana with the active ingredient, THC, helps with pain, sleep, appetite, stress, and inflammation. These are the problems, which if solved, allow a person’s body to heal itself.
However, we also now know that marijuana with THC and marijuana with CBD, but no THC, helps or cures a variety of ailments such as seizures, brain tumors, post-traumatic stress disorder, i.e., PTSD, and some cancers. It also is very promising for various mental disorders without all the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs. The book explains all the currently known medical applications and what varieties of marijuana have what types of applications, along with the possible side effects and interactions. Of course, hemp is also illegal under marijuana prohibition despite hemp having no THC content and being a historically important industrial material dating back to Colonial days.
Entrepreneurs and scientists are only beginning to explore the potential of marijuana and hemp. The plant promises to be a near cure-all medicinal ingredient. Hemp seeds are a super nutrition food that can help restore and maintain health. The plants are a master ingredient, like crude oil, that can be used to produce, or help produce, just about everything we need without the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Some ancient temple ruins were recently rediscovered in India and the masonry works were in remarkable condition. It turns out marijuana and/or hemp was used as an ingredient in the masonry. Investigators believe that it helped protect the masonry from water, mold, and insects over the centuries.
Jesse Ventura’s Marijuana Manifesto is well researched, easily readable, and thoroughly entertaining (if you consider getting mad at your government entertainment). It even comes with recipes! Jesse Ventura’s new book is highly recommended.