The totalitarian state

[Firestarter]

Many people have heard about the protests against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Treaty (TTIP), without knowing what it is really about. Basically the USA and European Union are making a deal to prevent free trade from developing countries.
As a current example of "free" world trade I choose Venezuela (see my "new" thread viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1627), where there are protesters in the streets, because they cannot buy food.

EXPLOITATION OF THE THIRD WORLD
After the colonies were given their sovereignty, nothing has really changed. The colonial forces still decide how the colonies are exploited, under the guise of international law.
A nice example is the protective measures by the European Union. First they use tax money to support their industry, so that the third world cannot compete with the EU. The EU gets some of this money back, with import duties to ensure that the third world can neither compete in the Euro zone. Then our investors in their best philanthropic guise help these countries, it is only natural that they want to be rewarded. Here a description of how the EU uses protective measures against the third world: http://web.archive.org/web/201302080931 ... asures.php

As a logical result these third world "banana republics" get financial problems, so need to borrow money from the World Bank and the IMF to be able to come around (it's easy to provide loans, when you have the power to print money), for which in return they do exactly what they are told. With these adjustments - of course - their economy gets even more ruined.
One of the best tricks are the trade agreements between countries, at the discretion of the "independent" white judges. From 1959 on, the conclusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) for investments with developing countries became popular; in the early years these BITs were based on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of 1947. In 1995 came the next big development in BITs with the General Agreement on Tariffs in Services (GATS), for investments in services. From the end of the 1980s on there was some kind of explosion in BITs; no longer only between developed and developing countries, but also among and between developed countries, to exclude developing countries. Developing countries got forced to agree on BITs, because without it was simply made impossible to export, while the foreign investors take their money away.

As long as there are crises, the large investors earn extra money. Any idea who cause the crises?

For the history of international treaties for investment see the story of Vandevelde from 2005: http://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/volume-12-1/van5.pdf

In the following story Anghie names exploitation of developing countries under the guise of international law "positivism": http://web.archive.org/web/201905191907 ... ialism.pdf


TTIP/ISDS
Here’s a short list of the consequences of TTIP in the world: https://web.archive.org/web/20161201131 ... -be-aware/

Here an extensive story about the ISDS arbitration: http://corporateeurope.org/2012/11/chap ... troduction

If the EU and the USA sign the TTIP, other areas are excluded and forced to agree on BITs, so the colonial forces can continue to plunder them. I had read a report that the economy of South America decreases with 1.5 to 5.6% and Africa with 1.2 to 4% as a result of TTIP, which has since been removed from the internet.
Here’s another report that explains how TTIP will damage the South American economy: https://web.archive.org/web/20161114113 ... rs-and-the

Based on the arbitration of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) multinationals can sue countries if they think their investments have yielded too little in return. The effect is that when countries take protective measures for environment, health, workers' rights or human rights, they are sued by the multinationals. If subsidies are provided or if subsidies are stopped, countries can be sued. As far as democratically elected parliaments have something to say, this is even further limited by the ISDS. It is the World Bank that decides on these disputes, in other words: by the ISDS arbitrations, the bankers (that are the biggest investors) become even more powerful at the expense of the taxpayer.
First the legal team of an investor looks for the most advantageous Treaty and arbitral tribunal for the claims to have been disadvantaged by a country. The ISDS disputes are judged by 3 arbitrators, of which both parties choose 1 arbitrator, who together choose the President of the arbitration tribunal. In order to give the arbitrators the leverage to judge arbitrarily, many treaties are rather vague. 69% of the arbitrators come from North America or Western Europe.

The most indicted country among ISDS is Argentina for hundreds of millions to billions, for the measures it took in 2001, the crisis in Greece was directed by the IMF and the World Bank and Greece was also indicted repeatedly. Most lawyers concerned and arbitrators claim an hourly rate of over 500 dollars (not even included the exaggerating of the time spent).
The next quote makes clear how independent the ISDS arbitration is, from a lawyer that bragged:

I've got a case right now in front of [a leading international arbitrator]. Every time I go to a conference, he's there. We read each other's books. My opponent on the case ... well, he hasn't got a clue [...]. Between all the partners in our group [...] we've appeared before every single arbitrator worth knowing. Not just once, but multiple times in the past few years and we have the inside knowledge as a result of that.

.
To ensure that the people do not know what is going on: both the ISDS provisions and TTIP negotiations are done in secret (how’s that for democracy?). An inevitable result of TTIP is that health care is privatised. Any idea of the consequences if the investors think they can make more money if the population is reduced?


THE COLONIAL WORLD BANK
It is the Board of Governors, in which all 189 countries represented, that makes the decisions in the World Bank. The catch is that these countries have a voting power based on their economic status. This means that countries that became rich by plundering the colonies now reward themselves with extra voting power.
The voting ratio depends on the matter concerned: 1) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBPRD), 2) International Development Association (IDA), 3) International Finance Corporation (IFC) and 4) Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). I have made a sum of the total voting power for 11 Western European countries with the USA, Canada and Australia. This shows that these 14 countries (with less than 15% of the world's population) have 56% of the voting power on whole. On the subject MIGA (including the ISBS, I suppose), these 14 countries account for a whopping 88% of the voting power. Also striking is that the GB and colonies - USA, Canada and Australia - together account for 36% of the control and even 69% for MIGA.


KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS
Of course I´m very proud that my home country the Netherlands not only had a starring role in the slave trade, but in 2014 came first in the whole world in claims for the ISDS. The following advertisement of my "favourite" law firm De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, shows that the Netherlands is an ideal country to "settle" to evade taxes and sue Governments of countries based on the many beneficial BITs for the rich and corrupt: https://web.archive.org/web/20170125193 ... ergen-.pdf

Theoretically, a company only has to open a mailbox to use the Dutch tax law and BITs. In practice, of course, it is expected that the right people get rewarded (which could even be named investment).
Venezuela was also indicted from the Netherlands by oil companies ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips (EDIT - "new" link to archive): http://archive.is/FtZEx


VENEZUELA
(Part of) post removed to "new thread": viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1627

Keywords: "largest oil exporters, shortage of products, power cuts, Hugo Chávez, IMF and World Bank, CIA, Fidel Castro, cancer, poisoned Cuban doctors, radiation, chemotherapy and surgery, Eva Golinger, bodyguard Salazar, Nicolás Maduro, hyperinflation, Citibank and Goldman Sachs"

The State media calls this: international law, democracy, capitalism, free market and development aid. I call this: abuse of power, slavery, exploitation, corruption and organised crime.
I can see only one real difference between 2016 and the colonial 19th century: because of computer technology the value of a human being is at an absolute minimum.

[Firestarter]

Most 10 years old can debunk the story of the north polestar (Polaris) which supposedly is a magic star in the north of the sky all year long.

This must be one of the most stupid mistakes I’ve made in my life (can you imagine I hope I still have the chance to make a lot more?). When the axis of the earth is shifted by 90 degrees (as opposed to my misinterpretation), it is not difficult to pick a point for the North Polestar, see the picture.

[Firestarter]

Because the bankers effectively run our world, they’ve created a society in which they cannot lose.
American banks only have to back up investments (or loans) with a cash reserve ratio of 10%. This means with an American savings account for 10,000 dollar, the banks get a present of 90,000 dollar. In the European Union the reserve requirement is even lowered to 1%, so European financial institutions could even invest 990,000 for 10,000 dollar. And this is probabably why Great Britain never took part in the Euro (GB has a 0% cash reserve ratio).
In this way the European colonial forces still rule the USA - the European banks are 10 times more powerful than their American counterparts. On the other hand: Brazil has a reserve requirement of 45%, so with 10,000 dollar Brazilian banks can invest “only”12,222 dollar. In 1978 Turkye had a reserve requirement of 62.7%, so with 10,000 dollar Turkye could only invest 5,949 dollar.
I’ll give some examples.

You deposit 10,000 dollar on a savings account at an interest rate of 2% a year. I will use a conservative interest rate for the investments of the bank of 4% a year. At the time of the deposit the bank can place the 10,000 in the central bank and invest 90,000 dollar.
In 1 year time your credit has grown to 10,200 dollar, while the bank has made a profit of 3,600 dollar (so including your 200 interest, the bank can invest an additional 3,800 multiplied by 9).
In 2 years time your credit has grown to 10,404 dollar, while the bank made 7,552 dollar.
In 3 years time your credit has grown to 10,612 dollar, while the bank has made 11,874 dollar.
So in 3 years time the bank makes more money from the money you put in your savings account than your total savings. Probably the bank even gets an interest rate for the 10,000 dollar it holds in reserve with the central bank.

Insurance companies can use the same cash reserve ratio of (say) 10%. According to the following information insurance companies settle the bill you pay for only a small fraction: http://www.lawfulpath.com/cat/index.php#1204
In this example you pay a medical bill (to the insurance company) for 100 dollar, which the insurance company settles for 20 dollar (20%). The insurance company makes a profit of 80 dollar for which it can invest 720 dollar (not even counting your monthly insurance fee).

The previous is unfair but not money creation. When you borrow money from the bank, now that’s money creation. Don’t you think it’s strange that when you buy a house, the down payment goes to the bank (instead of to the house seller)?
In this example you make a down payment of 50,000 for a mortgage loan to buy a 250,000 dollar house. The bank doesn’t run any risk (with the 50,000 it can already invest 450,000 dollar) and of course: they will get the 250,000 dollar (plus interest). If you cannot pay, they confiscate your house (while you’ve paid 50,000 the bank simply created 200,000 dollar out of thin air).
Of course the created 200,000 dollar ends up on another bank account (for which that bank can invest 1.8 million). And you have to work really hard to “earn” the created 200,000 dollar (which makes you a motivated slave).

There used to be a gold standard, where central banks could only create money backed up by gold (or we only had to believe it was backed), but this was abolished in 1971. So central banks can print money without limitations: http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2 ... dstandard/
Central banks can also create money by simply lowering the reserve requirement or lending “money” to commercial banks.
Because banks can almost freely invest money they can always plunder a company and then file for bankruptcy (keeping the money). One major goal of TTIP is to liberate the “stricter” standards in the USA to the more “liberal” standards of Europe for banking.
Please don’t tell a sole, that if we take our money out of the banks and refuse to loan any more money: all hell breaks loose...

[editor]

Firestarter,

I agree with most of what you say above. However, I take issue with this statement:

Don’t you think it’s strange that when you buy a house, the down payment goes to the bank (instead of to the house seller)?

While I grant you the bank is using fictional money in their mortgage arrangements, that doesn't mean that all lending/borrowing is evil, or that sound lending practices should be suspect. Let's examine your statement using an alternate lender, i.e. an individual who, unlike the bank, cannot create money from thin air and bellybutton lint.

Aaron wants to sell his house. He figures it's worth $100,000. Bob agrees on the value, and wants to buy, but he doesn't have $100,000. Bob goes to his friend Carl, whom he knows has cash on hand, and asks for a loan.

Carl says, "Look Bob, we've been friends a long time, but I worked hard for that money. You're asking me to give Aaron $100,000 today, and let you start living in the house right away. What guarantee do I have you're going to pay me back?"

Bob replies, "Tell you what Carl, I've got $10,000 now that I can pay up front. So I really only need to borrow $90,000. I'll sign a promissory note for the $90,000, in which I promise I'll pay you back within 20 years. I'll agree to pay interest at a rate of 5% per year, calculated monthly. I'll make monthly payments of $593.96, until it's paid off."

Carl says, "I like the fact you're willing to put up $10,000 of your own money-- that means you're serious. But I'm not convinced. If I'm going to do this, you'll have to sign that promissory note, but I also want a mortgage. That means if you don't pay me, I can take the house and sell it to get my money back. Oh, and Bob, I've seen your credit rating, and it's not so hot. You're kind of a high risk borrower, if you want to know the truth. I'll lend you the money, but it will cost you 10%, not 5%. That means to pay it off in 20 years you'll have to make payments of $868.52 every month, instead of $593.96. What do you say?"

Bob concedes, "You're right, Carl, my credit isn't very good. I really like that house, and I want to be able to fix it up and make it mine over the next 20 years, and then have a place to retire. I agree."

So they close the deal. Carl collects Bob's $10,000, just to make sure Bob really pays it. They're friends and all, but business is business. Carl gives Aaron $100,000, in exchange for a warranty deed made out to Bob. Bob signs a promissory note AND a mortgage over to Carl. Aaron got all his money up front. Bob gets to live in his new house while he makes payments to Carl. Carl earns interest on his savings.

Bob ends up paying Carl $208,445. Contrary to what many people may say, Bob did not pay that much for the house. He only paid $90,000 for the house. The extra $118,445 is what Bob paid for the privilege of borrowing the money. Bob didn't have to buy the house, or borrow the money. He did it voluntarily, and he got something for his money-- the right to live in a house he could not otherwise afford, and to eventually own it.

I despise the banks as you do, Firestarter, for manipulating the system to the point that they can loan money they don't even have, and have been doing it for so long they own governments themselves. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. How can we get back to honest dealings, if we don't understand how things are SUPPOSED to work?

[Firestarter]

I despise the banks as you do, Firestarter, for manipulating the system to the point that they can loan money they don't even have, and have been doing it for so long they own governments themselves. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. How can we get back to honest dealings, if we don't understand how things are SUPPOSED to work?

Thanks for the addition, I am still trying to figure out "how things are SUPPOSED to work". I´m trying to wake people up, so they can think for themselves. I really can´t tell how it should be and even think it´s wrong if I tell others how it should be.
I never understood how anybody can "own" a house or why anybody has to own a house, that should have a longer lifespan than a human life (in my home town of Amsterdam are a lot of houses from the 17th century).
As I see it: "paper money" should make things easier and it does make things easier for the elite (that already live the easy life)...
I often think that deflation would make things better, if: 1) the prices for the housing go down, 2) the shopkeepers spend less money for their rent and 3) people can buy more and more for the same money.

[editor]

As I see it: "paper money" should make things easier and it does make things easier for the elite (that already live the easy life)...
I often think that deflation would make things better, if: 1) the prices for the housing go down, 2) the shopkeepers spend less money for their rent and 3) people can buy more and more for the same money.

Paper money is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as anything else. Look at it this way-- let's say you have just two people on a desert island, we'll call them Andy and Bob. They each have a knife (a very valuable commodity), and a dollar bill (Federal Reserve Note).

Question: How much money is one of their knives worth?
Answer: One dollar.

Why? The entire paper money supply on the island is two dollars. This does not take barter into account, but in this example we're not considering barter; we're talking about cash value. If one of the island residents wants to own two knives instead of one, and makes a cash offer, he cannot offer more than he has: one dollar.

Now let's say a bundle of dollar bills washes up on shore, and Andy finds it. He counts them, and there are exactly 9,998 dollar bills in the bundle. What has happened to the money supply on the island? It has jumped to $10,000. How much is a knife worth?

You might be tempted to say $5,000, and you'd be right-- eventually. But for the moment at least, Andy has the power to offer $9,999 for Bob's knife, if he wants it that much. By virtue of the fact that Andy came into possession of a windfall of cash that appeared out of thin air, he suddenly acquired a huge amount of purchasing power. Overnight, the price of a knife jumped from $1 to $9,999.

Now let's say Andy offers all his cash for Bob's knife, and Bob takes the deal. Andy now has two knives, and Bob has $10,000. How much is a knife worth? Answer: Somewhere near $5,000, though it's negotiable. A single knife may be worth slightly more than the value of both knives together. But a single knife will probably never again be worth as much as it was in that first trade. Not unless (or until) another bundle of cash washes up onto the island.

The sad truth though is that Andy will probably go to Bob and say, "Bob, I'd like to own your knife. I've been holding out on you. I have these extra nine dollars squirreled away that I never told you about. Will you trade your knife for $10?"

If Bob is shrewd he may assume Andy has an extra fifty he's still not admitting to. He may negotiate the price up to thirty or forty bucks. Eventually they'll arrive at a price. The new price for knives on the island will be loosely based on the amount of known cash on the island. Andy will have a large stash of cash in reserve, which he can use to trade in case something of real value ever washes up on the island, and Bob finds it before Andy. Andy will always have first dibs to the best finds.

There are some points to think about here:

[*]Does the knife really have more value, just because there is more cash available to purchase it?
No. The value of the knife hasn't changed. It simply takes more dollars to purchase it than before. That means each dollar is worth less.
[*]Adam didn't care how much he had to pay for Bob's knife, because Adam got that cash for nothing. He used it to purchase the only other thing of real value on the island. Do you see now why the military doesn't mind paying $900 for a toilet seat?
[*]Do you also see how, in situations like this, the most important part is who gets to spend the new money first? What if there was a third guy on the island (Chuck) who had a single dollar in his pocket, but no knives. How would he be effected by the sudden flood of cash? Would he ever have a chance of purchasing a knife? No. Yesterday, maybe. After today, never.

When the Federal Reserve, through the federal government, prints more money (or enters more zeros into the computer banking system) and spends it into the economy, it increases the supply of cash in exactly the same way as the above example. The only difference is that instead of a bundle washing up onshore, the Fed has an unlimited printing press, with a monopoly backed up by the military. No one else may compete.

Since there's more to go around, each dollar will be worth less-- eventually. The first people to spend the new cash will be able to buy at today's prices. But people will eventually figure out there's more cash and prices will rise.

When prices rise, does that mean real goods have more value? No, the value of real goods is unchanged. It simply takes more cash to buy them.

[Firestarter]

Do you see now why the military doesn't mind paying $900 for a toilet seat?

The banks lend money to the government to buy for billions of dollars weapons, bombs and supplies, etc. This money goes directly to the owners of the weapon- and toilet seat producers, these are in turn owned by the same banks. So now the government is indebted, while the money has returned to the banks (which they can invest 10-fold). The goal of the banks is not so much the getting of more and more money (they can print it themselves so why bother), but to prevent the poor (slaves) from getting enough money to live the easy life.

Paper money is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as anything else.

I've never thought about it that way, there must be a difference (because money is worthless)...
In the Netherlands the government claim we're living in a "care state" (verzorgingsstaat). This is proven, for example, by that poor people get a subsidy for their house rent. So now the subsidy (tax money) goes directly from the government to the wealthy house owners. If they wouldn't: either the rents have to go down or the wages have to go up. When people finally earn enough to pay their rent the subsidy stops and their additional earnings go for a large part to the owners of the housing. Of course if the rents would decrease, we get the wonder of deflation. If the amount of money remains the same, people can buy more and more (with the same amount of money). Everybody tries to make as much money as they possibly can, when we realise that deflation breaks the dictatorship of the elite... poor people can rise above slavery.

Since there's more to go around, each dollar will be worth less-- eventually. The first people to spend the new cash will be able to buy at today's prices. But people will eventually figure out there's more cash and prices will rise.

Not necessarely: when I have enough money, for me it's worthless (but this doesn't mean I tell the shop I want to pay more); I found out the hard way that money is very valuable when I'm without.

When prices rise, does that mean real goods have more value? No, the value of real goods is unchanged. It simply takes more cash to buy them.

When prices decrease, does that mean real goods have less value? I don't think so, but maybe I'm too much of a dreamer.

[Firestarter]

In the Luxembourg Leaks (LuxLeaks) financial scandal in 2012 and November 2014 confidential information from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was made available that showed that tax schemes for multinationals in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Ireland were used to avoid paying taxes (basically the kind of schemes De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek is advertising for the Netherlands). The confidential documents are available on the website of ICIJ: https://www.icij.org/project/luxembourg ... s-database
The European Commission decided that the tax deduction schemes for Fiat Finance from Luxembourg and Starbucks from the Netherlands are illegal state aid.
Since then the whistleblowers involved in this case have been accused in a trial by PwC for exposing this scheme. The following have to defend themselves in this court case: Antoine Deltour, Raphael Halet (both whistleblowers from PwC), Edouard Perrin (French journalist involved) and The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ: coordinated the release of this information).
This is the best story I’ve read on this scandal: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3076 ... ng-charged

[Firestarter]

Of course there’s a lot more on AIDS.
Part of post removed to “new” thread on the HIV/AIDS hoax: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... f=21&t=895
Keywords: AIDS, HIV, Horowitz EMERGING VIRUSES EBOLA, Dr. Robert Gallo, Fort Detrick, Dr. Luc Montagnier, Dr. Robert B. Strecker Memorandum, retrovirus, combining bovine leukaemia visna virus sheep, simian monkey, cat leukaemia RNA, cancer, George W. Merck, chemotherapy, Margaret Fischl study AZT and ddC.

There are a lot of quotes of the elite saying that eugenics is necessary and the world population must be reduced, for example: Sir Julian Huxley (founder of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and brother of Aldous Huxley), Prince Philip (husband of Queen Elizabeth), Thomas Ferguson (Latin American case officer for the US Office of Population Affairs) and Robert McNamara (American secretary of state for the Department of Defense from 1961 -1968 and after that chairman of the World bank and part of the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI)).

Here are some quotes from the elite on the need for eugenics (by reducing reproduction, by condoms for example, or by increasing the death rate).
Sir Julian Huxley (1941): “If so, then we must plan our eugenic policy along some such lines as the following:... The lowest strata, allegedly less well-endowed genetically, are reproducing relatively too fast. Therefore birth-control methods must be taught them; they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization, or at least relief should be contingent upon no further children being brought into the world; and so on. That is to say, much of our eugenic programme will be curative and remedial merely, instead of preventive and constructive”.
Thomas Ferguson: “There is a single theme in all our work - we must reduce population levels. Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it”.

[notmartha]

There are a lot of quotes of the elite saying that eugenetics is necessary and the world population must be reduced,

Here are a few more:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in a July 7, 2009 interview in New York Times:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf, 1924:

"The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of the clearest reason and if systematically executed represents the most humane act of mankind."

John Holdren, White House science 'czar,' director of the White House Office and Technology Policy, in “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” 1977:

"nder the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

Ron Weddington, co-counsel in Roe V. Wade, in letter to 'President-to-be' Bill Clinton, January 6, 1992:

"Condoms alone won't do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer ...No, government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions...RU 486 and conventional abortions. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies."

"But you can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I'm, not advocating some, sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies.There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and...well...so Republican."

The biblical exhortation to 'Be fruitful and multiply,' was directed toward a small tribe, surrounded by enemies. We are long past that. Our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone, contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners, We don't need more cheap labor. We don't need more poor babies.