Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Down

Author Topic: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)  (Read 22158 times)


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2018, 04:54:55 am »


(Continued from above)

Do you know more than a university economist? Now you will
Friday, Jul 6 2018

The six propositions lead to the following conclusions:

    Every form of money is “fiat,” i.e. created by the fiat of an issuer. (Contrary to popular belief, “fiat” does not mean “paper” as opposed to gold. There is no “paper” money, nor is gold money. Unlike barter commodities, money has no physical existence. )
    The U.S. government can pay any obligation denominated in U.S. dollars. It is impossible for the U.S. government unintentionally to run short of its own sovereign currency.
    No agency of the U.S. government can run short of U.S. dollars unless that is the intent of Congress and the President. (This includes such agencies as the White House, the Supreme Court, the military branches, Social Security, and Medicare.)
    The U.S. government neither needs nor uses tax dollars nor borrowing to pay its bills. (Because the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency, it has no need to obtain dollars from outside sources.)
    FICA does not pay for Social Security of Medicare benefits. (Even if FICA  were $0, the government could pay unlimited benefits, forever.)
    The federal government does not borrow. (It accepts deposits in Treasury Security accounts. It does not use the dollars in those accounts. The dollars remain in the accounts until maturity, at which time they are returned to the account owner.)
    Deposits in T-security accounts provide a safe depository for U.S. dollars (which stabilizes the dollar), and assist the Fed with its interest rate (and inflation) controls.
    Raising interest rates increases the Demand for dollars (to purchase dollar-denominated debt.)
    All dollars received by the U.S. government are destroyed upon receipt. (They disappear from any money supply measure.)
    There are two ways to create dollars and two ways to destroy dollars:
    Create Dollars
    I. Lend dollars
    II. Federal deficit spending
    Destroy Dollars:
    I. Pay off a loan
    II. Federal taxation
    Lending creates dollars. When a loan is supported by a loan document owned by the lender, the loan document is money. Like a dollar bill, it represents dollars owned by the lender, while the borrower receives new dollars. That is the difference between a loan and a payment. Though both are transfers of dollars, loans create new dollars, payments do not.
    Federal spending creates dollars. To pay a creditor, the federal government sends instructions (not dollars) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank (“Pay to the order of”) to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account. The instant the bank obeys those instructions, new dollars are created an added to the money supply (M1).
    Paying off a loan destroys dollars.  It reduces or eliminates the value of the loan document owned by the lender.
    Federal taxes destroy dollars. They remove dollars from all measures of the nation’s money supply.
    State and local taxes do not destroy dollars. These taxes are held in private bank accounts (M1 and M2), from which the state and local governments take them for paying creditors.
    The purpose of federal tax dollars is to control private spending (i.e. “sin” taxes, tax deductions for businesses, etc.)
    The Social Security and Medicare “trust funds” are bookkeeping fictions. (In private-sector trust funds, receipts are deposited and invested. In federal trust funds, receipts are recorded and removed from the nation’s money supply. Spending creates new dollars, ad hoc.)(Medicare Part A supposedly is paid by a fictional “trust fund,” while Medicare Parts B and D are paid out of the Treasury’s “General Fund.” The Medicare “trust fund” supposedly is running short of money; the General Fund never can run short of money.)
    The formula for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is: Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.
    Federal deficit spending stimulates GDP growth by adding dollars to the economy, i.e. by increasing Federal Spending and Non-federal Spending.
    Reductions in federal deficit spending lead to recessions. (Vertical bars are recessions. Red line is deficit spending.)
    Recessions are cured by increases in deficit spending.
    Decreases in federal debt lead to depressions.
    1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
    1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
    1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
    1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
    1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
    1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
    1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
    1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001
    The Federal Reserve controls inflation via interest rate control. (Interest rates support Demand for dollars.)
    The primary cause of inflation has been an insufficient Supply of goods, not an excessive Supply of dollars.(Most modern inflations have been related to a shortage of oil. Every hyperinflation also has been caused by a shortage, usually a shortage of food.)
    Despite endless concerns that the federal “debt” (deposits in T-security accounts)) may be a “ticking time bomb,“ the federal government has no difficulty servicing its “debt” and inflation has averaged close to the Fed’s 2.5% target.
    Red line is federal “debt.” Blue line is inflation.
    The commonly referenced federal Debt/GDP ratio has no function or meaning. It does not indicate economic health, nor does it indicate the federal government’s ability to service its obligations (which is infinite).
    Interest rate increases are economically stimulative. They force the federal government to pump more interest dollars into the economy.
    A trade deficit is more beneficial to a Monetarily Sovereign nation’s economy than is a trade surplus. In a trade deficit, the Monetarily Sovereign entity receives scarce goods and services, while sending money it has the infinite ability to create from thin air. In a trade surplus, the Monetarily Sovereign nation, receives money it doesn’t need in exchange for goods and services it must create by valuable labor and scarce resources.
    People stimulate GDP by being creators, producers and consumers. Political entities (nations, cities, counties, states) that have net immigration grow compared with entities that have net emigration. GDP is a spending measure; adding immigrants increases government and private spending.
    Federal anti-poverty spending is economically stimulative. It increases the nation’s money supply, and it helps the poor population to be more creative and productive.
    Bigotry is economically depressive. Bigotry marginalizes a population (a gender, a race, a religion, a sexual preference) and prevents that population from being as productive as it otherwise could be.
    The sole purpose of government is to improve the lives of the people.  Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

In answer to the title question, now you know more than most university economists. Read the “Ten Steps” below, and you’ll know even more.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:17:52 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #61 on: July 22, 2018, 09:02:33 am »



Part 1 of 3 [1a. Bundy's; 1b. Bundy's; 2. Zuckerberg's]

1a. Bundy Ranch Standoff Fake

[Mathis is good at asking questions that most of us don't think to ask most of the time.]

Donald Trump allegedly pardoned the Hammonds last week. I say allegedly because the whole story is part of a long running fake project. It concerns the Bundys and Hammonds in Oregon, as part of that whole highly publicized series of standoffs going back to 2014. It is supposed to be between cattlemen and the Feds, but it is another manufactured and staged play, meant to keep your eyes off other things. Trump didn't really need to pardon anyone, since this entire saga has been another hoax. I can tell this just from the names, and you should have caught those, too. Hammond and Bundy. Top families we have seen many times. The Hammonds we saw in my paper on Bob Dylan, since a Hammond was head of Columbia Records, being the man behind both Dylan and Leonard Cohen. The Bundys we saw in my paper on Ted Bundy, who spent some time in the Northwest, as we know. He was in nearby Washington state, pushing forward various projects in the 60s and 70s. He was at Washington State and then worked on Rockefeller's campaign in Seattle. He was actually a Rockefeller delegate in 1968. Amazingly, this links us back to Simon Cowell above, since Bundy is supposed to have been born as Theodore Cowell. What are the odds?

In that paper I linked Ted Bundy to McGeorge Bundy, a head of the CIA. So we have all sorts of obvious red flags in this story about the standoff in Oregon. The Bundys involved there are Ammon and Cliven Bundy. We get another clue very fast, since Cliven's wife is Carol Turner. Another name from the same families. Ammon Bundy was the leader of the occupation in Oregon, which is curious since before that he was a car fleet manager living in Arizona. His father Cliven Bundy was born in 1946, and these Bundys of Utah are related to Russells who came from Vermont in the mid-1800s. The CIA Bundys are also from Vermont, and Ted Bundy has links to Vermont—being born in Burlington. This means the Bundys in Utah are (posing as) Mormons. However, since the Mormons were created by Jews and now often act as a front for them, you see how it goes. These Bundys are also related to the Funks and Barnums. And, as LasVegasNow reported in 2016, they are also related to Abbotts and Leavitts. The Abbotts we have seen many times before in these hoaxed events, and Leavitt is an old Jewish name, a variation of Levy. The name Abbott also confirms my link to the east-coast CIA Bundys, since those Bundys had a branch that was part of the Boston Brahmins, along with the Abbotts. The Abbotts are not on the main Brahmin list at Wikipedia, but like the Bennetts, Ayres, Edsons, and several others, they either should be on the list or exist just off it. However, the name Dwight is on the Brahmin list, so keep that in mind. You are about to see it again.

Perhaps the best way to see that this was all staged is by the fact that all charges in the Bundy standoff were later dropped “due to prosecutorial misconduct”. Right. That's convenient, isn't it? It fits perfectly with all the other fake trials we have unwound. In the Malheur NWR occupation, Ammon Bundy was acquitted on all charges. My guess is these people didn't spend one minute in jail.

Here's another way you can tell it was fake. Go to the Wiki page for the Bundy standoff, and note that it began in April 2014 when armed protestors demanded their confiscated cattle back from BLM and local sheriffs. We are supposed to believe the Feds backed down, releasing the cattle. No arrests were made, no citations issued, and nothing was done about overdue grazing fees. Bundy took the cattle right back out onto the federal lands and continued to graze them, despite being forbidden by court order from doing so since 1998. Does that sound like a true story to you? The Feds just failed to enforce a court order for 16 years, and when they finally got around to confiscating the cattle, they just gave them back when Bundy and some friends showed up with guns? Sure. Even more risible is that we are told the BLM had cancelled a cattle roundup in 2012 when Bundy threatened them with violence. Funny, because I thought that threatening government officials with violence was a serious offense. According to this mainstream story, it isn't. We are told the County Sheriff's Dept. wouldn't help BLM because the court order had become “stale”. Really? We are supposed to believe that? We are supposed to believe the BLM, a federal agency, relies on the gunpower of local Sheriffs? BLM can't call in back-up from the FBI, the military or the National Guard? That's not what we were led to believe in Waco in 1993, was it? There we were taught that if you cross any federal agency they send in the stormtroopers and burn you up with your children, down to the last babe in swaddling clothes.

Another way you can tell it was fake? Two days after the confrontation of April 2014, Cliven Bundy appeared on both Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's national programs, demanding that locals “disarm the federal bureaucrats”. Right. Who believes this stuff? He calls for armed insurrection on national TV and we are supposed to believe the USGov just looks the other way? I encourage you to read the long Wikipedia page on this event and see if it makes any sense. That may be easier for you to do now that four years have passed.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:11:32 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #62 on: July 22, 2018, 09:03:58 am »


Part 2 of 3 [1a. Bundy's; 1b. Bundy's; 2. Zuckerberg's]

More clues come from the linked Las Vegas shootings in June of 2014, where the Millers supposedly shot two police officers in cold blood at a pizza parlor. Guess what one of the officer's name was. . . Beck. A cousin of Glenn Beck, maybe? And who was Jerad Miller? An actor. The mainstream admits he was working as a street performer just before these events transpired. But that's not suspicious, is it? Ask yourself this: why are we not supposed to think this event was just another street performance, bankrolled this time by the Feds? Just three months earlier, he had—we are told—sent messages to the local DMV, threatening to kill anyone who showed up to arrest him for having a suspended driver's license. They are testing you again with that story. What is wrong with it? One, they don't show up at your house to arrest you for a suspended driver's license. They have to catch you driving illegally, don't they? If you don't want to get arrested, all you have to do is walk or ride your bike. Two, if you threaten State employees in any way, they send a sheriff out to arrest you. If you have a previous record—as Miller is supposed to have had—they not only charge you with the appropriate crime (assault, etc.), they keep you in jail as a precaution until the trial. Otherwise you might drive your car though the front glass at the DMV and hurt or kill someone. So, according to the given story, Miller shouldn't even have been on the street in June of 2014. He should have been in jail awaiting trial for threatening State workers.

More clues come from the other leader along with Ammon Bundy. His sidekick was named Ryan
Payne. Hmmm. A Payne involved. The Paynes are from the same families, aren't they? See Payne Stewart in my paper on Tiger Woods. They have been billionaires for generations, and are related to all the Presidents, including Abraham Lincoln.

Which brings us back to the Hammonds. The elder Hammond in this story is named Dwight Lincoln Hammond. I guess you caught that middle name. This confirms we have the right Hammonds, since the famous Hammonds are closely related to the Lincolns. For instance, John Hammond the Columbia head was the son of a Vanderbilt. With that in mind, go to the Wiki page for Amy Vanderbilt, where you will find one of her sons was Lincoln Gill Clark. All of those names are family names, and the Lincolns are closely related to the Clarks via the Todds. Mary Todd Lincoln's close relatives were Clarks. They don't want you to know this, which is why they scrub the Hammonds at They refuse to tell us the paternal grandparents of John Henry Hammond II. But we can walk around that easily, by going to Wiki, which has a page for a different James Henry Hammond. Yes, John Hammond Jr.'s father was named James Henry Hammond, which should look strange. How can John Henry Hammond be a II if his father is named James Henry Hammond? Anyway, the James Henry Hammond at Wiki is a generation or two too early, but the name can't be a coincidence. He is from the same family, being from South Carolina. His Hammonds are related to Fitzsimmons, Hamptons, and Fishers, telling us again we are on the right track. Anyway, this Hammond's parents were Elisha Hammond and Catherine Fox Spann. The name Fox again tells us we are in the right place. The Hamptons and Hammonds were among the wealthiest plantation owners in the South prior to the Civil War, and the Foxes are old Jewish money as well (though normally hiding behind Quakers).

I hope you also caught the first name of Hammond, which was Dwight. All three of his names are surnames, you see, and I reminded you above that Dwight was on the list of Boston Brahmins. Not a coincidence, as you now understand.

We can also link the Hammonds and the Bundys through the name Lincoln, since both are related to Lincolns. See William Lincoln Bundy, d. 1940, in the line of Cliven Bundy. He married a Burton whose sister married a Vanderpool. They are also related to MacArthurs, Reeds, and Lymans, which takes us back to the Boston Brahmins again. They are also related to the Iversons and Morrisons, including Walter Morrison who invented the frisbee. No doubt this takes us directly to Jim Morrison of the Doors and his father Admiral Morrison of the Gulf of Tonkin hoax.

This also links us to Phil Lyman, who was involved in the BLM fracas and allegedly sentenced to ten days in jail in 2015. If you remember, he was the San Juan County Commissioner, but nonetheless allegedly took the side of the protestors, becoming personally involved. He and others organized an ATV ride in Recapture Canyon in Utah. Well, his name is another red flag here. Like the Bundys, the Lymans are another prominent Boston Brahmin family going back centuries. This indicates that Lyman, the Hammonds, and the Bundys were all cousins, hired to appear in this stageplay by its directors.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:12:17 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #63 on: July 22, 2018, 09:05:50 am »


Part 3 of 3 [1a. Bundy's; 1b. Bundy's; 2. Zuckerberg's]

2. Zuckerberg Free-speech Act

Also interesting to see that Randi Zuckerberg is criticizing her brother Mark this week for defending free speech. She is suggesting the US join some European countries in banning Holocaust denial. This is obviously a manufactured event, to allow her to do just that. No real people are outraged that Mark Zuckerberg defended Holocaust deniers, since there is nothing offensive about what he said. Free speech is nothing more than Constitutional law in the US, and always has been. The Zuckerbergs manufactured this whole controversy, just so that Randi could promote a ban on free speech. Which should be far more offensive to average Americans, and probably is. All the people in the media pretending to be outraged at Zuckerberg's comments are simply planted mouthpieces, and this entire event was manufactured and staged like everything else in the news. It indicates the fascists are feeling the heat, and their answer of course is to turn up the fascism. If people aren't buying the old lies, force them to buy the lies at gunpoint. It won't work, since the US can't pass a ban on any free speech or any idea without overturning the entire Constitution. Not even I believe they are about to do that. Since they can't do that, they are trying to do the next best thing: if you can't change the laws, change the customs. They are trying to change the way you think by hitting you with this 24-7 barrage of propaganda. They want to convince you that those who question the mainstream on any topic are bad people, so they hammer away at these stories day in day out. But it isn't working. Why isn't it working? Because in order for it to work, the masses have to trust/respect those doing the hammering. No one trusts the Zuckerbergs and no one ever will, so Randi Zuckerberg isn't a good spokeswoman. Her propaganda is worthless and it will never stick.

That can be said about all these people in the news now. Everyone can tell they are transparent fronts for the powers-that-be, so their words don't have any weight. They and their families have been caught lying over and over about everything, so why should anyone believe them about the Holocaust or anything else? The answer: no one does. It isn't just the Holocaust that people are denying these days, it is everything. Sensible people are seeing that nothing about recent history makes any sense, so why believe it? If it is full of contradictions and isn't believable, why believe it? Even if the government overturned the Constitution and banned questioning government stories, it wouldn't make any difference. It might prevent the publication of some ideas online, but it wouldn't prevent people from believing what they believe or talking to their neighbors. You can't legislate that.

That is the real problem of people like Randi Zuckerberg. Not only can you not police what people think, once you have lost their trust you can't even influence their thoughts anymore. The propaganda doesn't work anymore, and that is what really concerns them. But as I have said many time before, it is their own fault. They had a pretty good propaganda machine working up until 2001, but they broke it by their own actions. CIA allowed DHS to come in and use their tools, and DHS broke those tools. There have simply been too many flubbed projects since 2001, and that isn't the fault of any Holocaust deniers. That is the fault of Intel itself. The problem goes far beyond Holocaust denial, since they would also have to address 911 denial, Sandy Hook denial, Manson denial, Hitler denial, Lenin denial, Cold War denial, Bay of Pigs denial, Castro denial, Kennedy denial, Hawking denial, MLK denial, serial killer denial, and news denial. People don't believe the news anymore, period. So what are the governors going to do about that? Are they going to pass a law to force you to believe the news? How will that work?

I will be told they are preparing for the onset of a 1984-style control grid, but I don't think they are. If they are, they are going about it the wrong way. The time to slip into that scheme was back in the 1950s, when everyone believed what they were told. In that case, ramping up the propaganda and having it believed was at least a possibility. But as it now stands, there is no possibility the masses are going to fall for such a naïve scheme. They aren't going to sit in front of some large screen and buy even bigger lies than they are already being sold. You don't implement 1984 when everyone is already suspicious. You have to ease into that scenario from a position of trust. You can't blast into it from a position of distrust, because if your audience balks the whole plan fails from the first moment.

The governors already have a vast control grid in place, but the problem is it is failing. It relies on incredible levels of propaganda, but the lies aren't being swallowed. Successful propaganda requires trust, and all trust is gone. So the governors are now just relying on your inertia, which they make sure to supplement with as much drugging and confusion as possible. This is why they mothballed the just-say-no campaigns and switched to just-say-yes campaigns. This is why many States are legalizing marijuana and why they are watering down laws against other drugs. This is why they have made street mj much stronger. They are quite happy for you to be stoned out of your gourd. But of course you can counter that plan as well, by not buying the stuff. Stay lucid, friends, it is your only hope.

So, what will they do next? If the past is any indication, and it always is, they will continue to work undercover, scurrying about in the dark as much as possible. I don't expect to see them make any direct attack on your freedoms, since that would be counterproductive. Instead, they will try to continue to undermine your power and your sanity as much as possible. But once you know what they are up to, this is very difficult for them.

A different question: what should they do next? Well, since the current schemes aren't working, they should give them up completely and go another way. I am not suggesting they should turn themselves in and stand trial for all the crimes, since there is no chance that will happen. I am suggesting they should slowly ease into a plan B, by which they take the heat off themselves by taking the heat off of us. If they change their plan of governance from a plan of wholesale looting to a plan of beneficent governance, everyone will be happier, including them. Governors will always be rich, even under a plan of beneficence, but it doesn't have to be this obscene and dangerous level of wealth that lopsides the world and does no one any good. Surely it has occurred to them that after a certain point, wealth is just a meaningless column of numbers. Once you have a big house and four or five absurd automobiles and an even more absurd boat and college tuition for the kids, the rest is surplus. It doesn't do you any good and costs you more in lost freedom than it is worth as coinage. That is to say, after the first ten million or so, the wealth is just a burden. And yet these people have billions and sometimes trillions in the family, money just squirreled away in holes all over the world, doing nothing but earning meaningless interest. If they gave it all back they would never miss it. Indeed, they would sigh a big sigh of relief that they didn't have to guard it anymore. ...
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:13:39 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #64 on: August 15, 2018, 09:06:16 am »



What We Weren't Taught About Washington, D.C.

Historical Outline of Shadow Govt


U.S. the Worst Place in the Developed World to Give Birth, USA Today Investigation
By Andrea Germanos

A new USA Today investigation offers a searing indictment of maternal care in the United States, and says the country “is the most dangerous place in the developed world to give birth.”

“Deadly Deliveries,” the result of a four-year investigation, references federal data showing that more than 50,000 women are “severely injured” and roughly 700 die during childbirth each year. Perhaps even more staggering is that “half of these deaths could be prevented and half the injuries reduced or eliminated with better care,” the investigation found.

The findings, based on interviews with women and a trove of internal hospital records, “reveal a stunning lack of attention to safety recommendations and widespread failure to protect new mothers.”

Such failures often stem from inadequate or delayed responses to hemorrhages and dangerously high blood pressure.

A disturbing trend noted in the report: from 1990 to 2015, in most developed nations the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births was steady or dropped. Not so in the U.S., where the figure soared. In Germany, France, Japan, England, and Canada the number had fallen to below 10 in the time frame. In the U.S., meanwhile, the figured soared to 26.4.

California, though, is an exception. The state’s maternal death rate fell by half—a drop attributed to it adopting “the gold standard” of safety measures.

Looking at the overall picture in the U.S., though, “it’s a failure at all levels, at national organization levels and at the local hospital leadership levels as well,” Dr. Steven Clark, a leading childbirth safety expert and a professor at Baylor College of Medicine, said to USA Today.

One of the investigative reporters, Alison Young, talked with “CBS This Morning” about the report. The investigation follows a related analysis out late last year by ProPublica. Affirming previous studies, its analysis found “that women who hemorrhage at disproportionately black-serving hospitals are far more likely to wind up with severe complications, from hysterectomies, which are more directly related to hemorrhage, to pulmonary embolisms, which can be indirectly related. When we looked at data for only the most healthy women, and for white women at black-serving hospitals, the pattern persisted.”

« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 10:11:09 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Future School: Many Topics (Get Smart Blog)
« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2018, 07:06:55 am »



It's odd that all the Holocaust "death camps" were found by the soviets
See also from earlier in this thread:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up