3 votes

Zeitgeist, Occupy... and the Liberty movement?

I'm not claiming to understand the entire motivation of the Occupy or the Zeitgest movements although from what I understand they are not all that different from each other. When it comes to civil liberties and social policy like abolition, gay marriage, abortion, etc. they don't seem so different from any of us on their differing opinions.I also feel like many of them many of them favor a Ron Paul non-interventionalist strategy of foreign policy.

It seems that most of them also understand that monetary policy in the US is immoral. That is they can understand the scheme that is the Federal Reserve and can get behind abolishing it.

What they don't seem to understand though is that free market capitalism is not the cause of this countries problems. They see a desire to acquire wealth as immoral and that people should be limited as to what they can earn in order to try and provide for the suffering that exists. They feel motivation to work, and achieve, and invent, comes from within a person and that rewards are just a secondary consideration, and therefore wealth does nothing to hamper human progress and achievement.

So how do you make them understand that the free market economy in itself is not the cause of corruption rather it is the corrupt abusing power to manipulate the free market in order to profit that is the problem? It seems like this one issue is all that is keeping the Liberty movement from exploding with supporters. Anyone agree?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Crony capitalism is not capitalism

I think that explains it in a nut shell.


OWS is kind of like Bob Dylan. He sang about social change, and the issues with governments and such, but when people asked him questions about those topics, he said,"I'm just a song and dance man", because he didn't really have any idea what he was talking about. Occupy hides behind their lack of a platform because the people involved are too lazy or stupid to actually learn about the issues and the policies. They are college age hipsters who heard it was cool to be anti-government, but they didn't look into it any farther than that.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).


Just demand your freedom in a local setting, and work hard and maybe prove them wrong.

Or, just give them the facts, educate them about the Fed.

But, at the end of the day, these people are indoctrinated. They have been emotionally played by the system. You'd have better luck convincing a die-hard believer to be an atheist. This is because people think their state-sponsored beliefs are based in fact. And they have been emotionally programmed.

A calm, considerate, intellectual unraveling of their beliefs will provoke a disproportionate emotional response on their part. That's how the programming works. Media, marketing, they study how to exploit those deep areas of the mind. This is real. After the person is emotionally drained, they feel lost and also powerless. They won't care if you're right, they're done with you, you intimidate them and your presence is hurtful to them.

So, just fight for YOUR freedom. Move somewhere with likeminded people, become self-sufficient, get involved in local politics where your voice will make more of a difference.

tasmlab's picture

Here's zeitgeist

I had never heard of it. Good reading:


It's good stuff and well thought out (I only spent a few minutes). I didn't get to the part where they explain how this all happens without pointing guns at people. I think they may be over-complicating what money can be/is, particularly the simplicity and mere convenience of commodity money.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

ytc's picture

A few of the Zeitgeist videos that I watched started out

cogent and agreeable, but always ended up in a Utopian unrealistic "technology will solve all inequality and the need for hard labor" type of nonsense :-)

tasmlab's picture

I'm going to check out some more

Just reading the FAQ overview my head was spinning with counter-arguements, but I did like much of their critique of modern market economy as it manifests itself right now.

I was disappointed that the essays in 28 parts or so were only finished up to nine.

I sent it to a progressive friend I spar with to get him thinking beyond social democracy. It might be more interesting conversation.

Without having this thought out, a lot of what they desire could be post market anarchism. It's wholly possible that more and more things would become free (or nearly so) in an abundance society. It's easy to imagine, like air, sunshine and swimming in the ocean today, that potable water, some foodstuffs, and may be some source of energy could become so plentiful that charging for them loses its utility or freeloader costs become negligible.

It's a little like debating episodes of Star Trek, but still enjoyable.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

If you really want to learn more about them

you should probably watch "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward". It's the third of their series and encompases and clarifies the first two which were hastily made.

They have millions of global members in chapters in every country (I think). They have annual webinars that attract 100's of thousands of viewers and they have a web development site where ordinary people are peer grouped together to tackle various issues. Unfortunately, I couldn't answer enough questions about their in-depth process (because I'm free market thinking based) to become active. Some issues have been tentatively 'solved' while others remain.

On the abundance thing, your comment directly led me to investigate the differences between them and the ultimate free market society a couple years ago. I even wrote a book on it. The nutshell version is that the ultimate free market wouldn't allow people to get suckered into monthly payments for long on things they could do for themselves (or buy a piece of equipment to do). As such, people would stop the torrent of money leaving their communities that goes to a) banks, b) insurance, c) energy, d) food, e) communication... plus education, information and entertainment. In short, if there was a purchasable solution, that would ultimately win out over the endless monthly expenses brought to us by today's monopolies. The result would be that people would earn 5 times what they do now and pay half the price to live. This causes savings to soar, inter and intra-family lending replaces banking and insurance and savings skyrockets. Since people still have to work for every dollar, they would not blow it like a lottery winner but they would ultimately be able to retire by age 30. That leaves enough openings in the job market to return unemployment numbers to a negative. When that happens, the workers retake their rightful place as being in control over their working conditions and wages.

It really is a fascinating path to investigate!

tasmlab's picture

Discussion board, unless I'm at the wrong link

Their discussion board, at least at that URL I posted, was super sleepy for a movement that has millions of global members. Perhaps I was at the wrong URL, they don't post, or something, but I didn't get the sense of a movement that was ready to pop with popularity.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

tasmlab's picture


Thanks for your post! I will check out the movie.

Your comments are in line with what I was thinking, although I don't want to even suggest that I've done the homework and the thinking yet (!)

When I was reading their stuff, I was thinking that market voluntaryism could end up with very similar outcomes to the Zeitgiest vision, similar to how you describe. With the difference between Zietgeist and ancap is that money exists in the second scenario. I think communism isn't supposed to have currency either, but they found they had to have it. I would think money would still be handy in the zietgeist times. I don't think that the elimination of all of the financial overhead (banks, insurance, etc.) requires the elimination of the convenience and store of value of money.

Even with abundance, some tacky asshole is going to want to fill their swimming pool with champagne. They gotta pay. It's perhaps enlightened to think people will value possessions with some sort of virtuous thrift and non-materialist smartness, but what a hazardous path of thinking!

In my brief tour of Zietgeist, I did exactly see where the planners lived, who they were, what they had to back up their decisions, whether there was voting or what not, etc. Besides implying that their might be a government and one that is empowered with force, you still may stumble with Hayek's criticism of central planning that there may not be consensus on what the global goal of a good society was e.g., some people might want a shining future-opolis, others a bucolic pastural country life, others a modern day Athens, perhaps others a moralistic Christian Pleasantville, etc.

Is your book available and any good? If so, let me know where to get it.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

You have a good grasp

of their situation, it seems. I commend you on that because most people don't get their direction very quickly. It leads many to think they're about centralized socialism under a different label.

Your point comparing Z and Ancap is most relevant. If I could add the ultimate Libertarian, free-market system to this comparison, what we're left with is various stages down the same road.

If we could suddenly fix all of our financial problems completely, we would end up with free-market Libertarians running the day. People would be wealthy if they were productive. Corruption and crimes would not pay so they would fade into the past. Government power and size would dwindle down to the most minimal system. Stage 1.

If this system continued to work, people's wealth would skyrocket to the point where, as compared to today, everyone would be a millionaire. As such, the social standing being tied to financial wealth (the concept that relates money to power now) would be forgotten. Today, we drop our extra pennies in the convenience store cup because they're not worth our time. In this scenario, the wealth equivalent to a day's or month's expenses will be treated that way. This is the proposal that the Zeitgeist group advocates we skip directly to. While possible, it's insanely improbable with the current geopolitical environment. Stage 2.

Moving beyond that extreme individual wealth world, some would question the existence of government in the first place. If this led to the elimination of it, we would have ancap ruling the day. Stage 3.

This stage heavily relies on the virtuous people to publicly overcome the criminal, mental, apathetic and the sleeping masses. Those sleepers just happen to include the tops of almost every industry, government and elites. Convincing them of the possibilities is very problematic.

The problem with moving from 1 to 2 is that it will fail unless the entire switchover is done globally all at once. Barring a globally unanimous movement, the transition period yields increasing violence with increased speed. So what you get is either less violence that lasts decades or enormous violence that lasts only months.

So... I came to the conclusion that we must first devalue the impact of money in our lives - break the ties between the social ladder and personal wealth. In other words, we must become wealthy on an individual basis, independent of social status, returning equality to the system, before any transition at all.

However, in hunting for the "how" to fight inequality by using only free market principles we all here believe in, I simply tracked down where our money goes. What I came away with is that our productivity is turned into wealth at certain rates that depend on our choices. However, that wealth can only go to one of two places. It either stays with the producer or it ends up in the hands of the big banks. There is absolutely no in-between. That's the bad news.

The good news is this really makes it easy to fix and that is the topic of my book. It's still awaiting a good editing and I always feel there's more I should include in it but if people are interested, PM me and I may just send out a copy in .doc format.

I enjoyed watching he

I enjoyed watching he Zeitgeist movies but I don't know much about the movement. Didn't know there was a movement I knew there was an idea of some sort of plan for a utopia but I never considered it any real thought.

I guess I don't have any input on Occupy either. I thought it was just a bunch of people who were angry that a bunch of other people were making a lot of money and they were not.


Zeitgeist recognizes the problems very well. Oppressed civil liberties, unsustainable monetary policy, corruption of government, etc. Pretty much everything liberty minded folks cry out about.

But the similarity stops there. The Zeitgeist "solution" is a global, centrally planned, moneyless society based on what they call a "resource economy". Instead of greedy capitalists buying and selling resources and goods, all of earth's resources will be catalogued by computer and then distributed to where they are needed most. At its core, a planet-wide socialist state where everything is provided for everyone.

Basically, they assume that their utopian vision will make corruption and scarcity complete non-issues overnight once the current global regimes collapse.. Instead of greedy capitalists buying and selling resources and goods, all of earth

No need to sugarcoat it :)

You use terms like "needed most" and socialist and "overnight" to emphasize that you don't agree with their position. That's not an impartial review. I've done quite deep research on them and learned a few things. I'll share them here.

While their 'surface' solutions follow along socialist paths (like advocating the loss of private property and such, when you dig deeper, that is simply a 'test the waters' theory because nothing else appears to offer the same benefits. They regularly and strongly advocate that all ideas for potential solutions coming from the people be investigated against the standard of solving our problems. Isn't that what we're doing too?

To be more fair to their arguments, they FIRST outline exactly how our system of scarcity can be replaced with one of abundance. This is key because if you believe there aren't enough resources, you'll come at centralized organization as one of control over who gets left out. If, on the other hand, you believe their premise that abundance will win the day, you'll see centralized organization as a 'beck and call' automatic distribution system.

If that's not clear, picture a filled stadium and an army passing out hot dogs. Under the abundance scenario where there are more than enough to fill any needs, a centralized system would entail thousands of flying drone quad-copters bringing hot dogs to everyone with their hand up. The alternative scarcity system would be a riotous bidding war among all the spectators with many not getting anything.

But most people don't believe we can reach a goal of abundance. To see it, all one must do is learn that 95% of what is made today will end up in the landfill in 6 months. 88% of our 'gathered' energy is wasted. 85% of our personal work effort is wasted. More than 80% of our income is 'wasted'. 93% of our resources are wasted but we do recycle 2.4% back into circulation. Picture our world changed to lower those losses to less than a few %.

I'm not promoting their system. I like the genuine free-market capitalist system but I am saying that unless we get our incentives right and bring abundance back into play, we're headed down a dangerous path.

I'm still not clear...

on the packed stadiums full of people holding their hands up for drone delivered hotdogs. :D

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


More detail...
IF.. you were in such a stadium and there was only one comodity (hot dogs) you would have a different view of centralized delivery depending on whether you though there were more than enough dogs vs. way too few.

In the case that you thought there were not enough supply, you would view centralized delivery as a control thing. In other words, your fears of who decides who gets one would be justified. Because obviously, if there aren't enough, a centralized delivery system would mean that one person ultimately held the choices. This is how people view our society today. (i.e. Not enough to go around and TPTB making the call of who gets what.) I'm saying that "the delivery method" takes the rap for the decision because it's centrally controlled.

In the case that you thought there were more dogs than all the people could want, you wouldn't care who got how many. Your concerns would boil down to how fast you could get yours. Gone would be any fear of some PTB deciding for you if you got one. In this case, the delivery system (those centrally controlled quadcopter drones) couldn't be fast enough or intelligent / smart / centralized / master controlled enough.

In the paradigm that the Zeitgeist Movement operated under, there is way more than enough of everything to go around as long as we stop all the waste. But here's the conundrum. It's the monetary system of competition and ownership that causes the waste. (their premise) So, their end goal is to avoid that waste so we can live in abundance and all the problems (incentive for oppression and living under the fear of it) that stem from scarcity (not enough dogs) will go away.

To be fair, they do have a point. It's actually very easy to track down much of today's waste. Where does that lead back to? To the failings of the capitalistic system.

I personally contend that it would be easy to remove those failings while leaving capitalism in place and the result would be less problems and more abundance and wealth per person.

Did that clear anything up or make it muddier? ;)

Occupy is made up of indiviudals. There is no leader. Just Info.

Some of these individuals set up very public and online discussions of the Federal Reserve, etc. Occupy also set up protest marches and confronted Obama on his foreign policy and his connections to Wall Street. The Feds labelled Occupy a potential terrorist organization. The Liberty Movement has a lot in common with many of the individuals participating in Occupy events. Ron Paul has supported the efforts of the Americans involved with Occupy. There is some commonalities with Zeitgeist. However, Zeitgeist embraces a neosocialism and Occupy embraces nothing. Occupy only creates opportunities to explore information. Many times through civil disobedience.

The occupy movement

Was subverted by the right as an Obama/Soros funded movement.

If that was the case, the left would have given positive, glowing coverage of the occupy movement. That didn't happen however.

The only media personality who gave Occupy constant coverage from the left was Keith Olbermann.

The Zeitgeist movement is basically based on one large conspiracy theory. Certainly a VERY compelling theory.

Again, voices on the right subvert by deriding and ridiculing any sniff of 'conspiracy theories', however valid their arguments may be.

Of course, the right have their own 'conspiracy theories' such as Benghazi. By 'the right' of course I mean the Neo-Cons.

Love and patience...

are in order here. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I would suggest

that the two groups mentioned be discussed separately. There is very little in common between them.

Occupy is an ad-hoc, spur of the moment group the sprung from viral news about their common complaint - monetary inequality. They didn't spend lots of time educating each other along any path to research very deep. They justifiably are pissed that they have no jobs while Wall St. if fat and happy. From that standpoint, who can blame them?

There are, however, many that are aware of various parts of our entire system and what they know tends toward what they suggest. Regarding their liberal slant, most are too young to have experienced truly winning from your own success so all they know is peer info and the indoctrination of education system. This doesn't mean they don't have any critical thinking skills. Many of them do and some are very intelligent. They just come from a different pool of experience.

The Zeitgeist group is nothing like Occupy. They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. These are usually people who have come through some research to the point that they can envision a drastic change in our world structure because they see all the problems that exist today. The problem is that they only know one solution and it's so complicated that I have yet to find any of them (or any critics here) that get it right all the way through.

Their solution is that in order to eliminate the corruption that results from money, we'd be better off living without money at all. This may sound very radical at first, but it's really quite well thought out if you can get all the pieces in full comprehension. I don't say that lightly because many concepts that are required for success sound very much like other things or ideologies until the finer details get out. In short, the idea is that resources are the finite, final limiting factor in all human activity so resource limits should be the only restrictive mechanism to allowing the global population full abundance of everything they might want.

Why do they think this is better and how do they think it would work? Their argument is that with technological advancement put to its fullest effort, to supply everyone with full abundance would only take 15% of the current workforce. I have confirmed this number is close to mine and can justify it by showing the massive percentage of our workforce employed to simply deal with money. If you look at this with an open mind, this would include all bankers, financiers, insurance companies, cashiers, brokers, investors and pretty much most of our government. (Remember, most of our regulators are only there to enforce monopolies for profit!) In a nutshell, they do make a good case.

How to accomplish this? This is where they fail. Their grand plan is to get enough people behind them first and then simply walk away from money. PFFT! That's where they lose me. There's no way that IF such a far out plan was going to work that it would ever be something that a majority of the entire planet's population would ever coordinate their own financial demise all together just on the chance it might work.

However, if we look at how the free market process (the genuine one) applies to the facts and causations of the Zeitgeist group, a few very interesting things stand out.

Say we undertook making such a plan. We would have to investigate all their claims as they would apply when we stuck to free-market, sound money, libertarian principles, small government, private property based economy and our basic Representative/Constitutional Republic. If both remained in tact when that process was complete, what you were left with 'might' in fact, be doable.

By the research I've done and the transition can be gradual and non-committal (on both macro and micro levels), I'm convinced this to be so. But again, it's a pretty complicated process.

Golden Rule

Many of the false capitalists are as guilty as the many false socialist and there is an easy way to find out one from the other.

If anyone claims that government power aught to be this or aught to be that then the best way to prove it is by competition, putting their money where their mouth is, and that is the design feature designed into a Democratic (left leaning or liberal in the classic liberal sense) Federated (as in confederated) Republic (as in the combination of many sovereign competitive constitutionally limited state governments into a whole body of mutual defensive power).

Democratic (sovereign people)
Federated (sovereign states among states)
Republic (sovereign republic among republics)

Take any person who claims to want the government to do something and if they would not do that themselves, if they could, and most certainly when they can, then they are basically speaking falsely.

That is The Golden Rule test applied at the level of individual powers called people.

If you don't like the gated community that becomes a gated community around you, at a local, neighborhood, level, then stop paying the dues and see what happens. You may have to vote with your feet, or you may be able to fight the case all the way DOWN to the State court.

You are in your castle and other people impose their will upon you, and good luck with fighting the criminals at the State level of government.

Is it a matter for the people employed by the States, those Federal government employees, a Mr. So and So occupying a congress seat, or a “president” seat, or not?

No, it is not a matter of defense against attack by a foreign power, internal, or external, for you to be defending your castle against the invaders who work to create a gated community around you, which is frivolous in the extreme. The same is true for the people demanding payment, or compliance, who are propping themselves up as dictators in your neighborhood, it is not a matter of the employees hired by the State to enforce a gated community agreement, no more than it is a matter of the employees hired by the State, constitutionally limited state, hired to defend all the States, from enemies foreign and domestic, to punish your children or punish you for punishing your children.

When someone claims that their actions are good when they do it, but worthy of punishment when you do it, then someone aught to call them on that lie.

So the highest level is the self (or God if a self has spiritual power in that way) then the next level down is the family, then anything downhill from that highest level, in Liberty, is a city, or a county, or a State level, and just because the power assembled becomes more power wielded by the employees, as numbers grow exponentially greater, does not make the employees employed to govern any less able to be criminals, the contrary is in fact well demonstrated in fact.

So, going back to the topic title, a Left Leaning Liberal of the genuine bend, or on the other hand a Left Leaning Liberal of the criminal bend, could exercise their self POWER, their absolute sovereign POWER, by putting their money where their mouth is in a Democratic Federated Republic, as they see fit, and either pay for, or not pay for, what they want paid for, or not paid for, by moving, voting with their feet, from a worse, to a better, competitive State in that voluntary government designed to be that competitive way as such.

This is not news.

This was once known, and other people, other than me, still know how this type of voluntary government is supposed to work.

Person A says they want government to be this or that, so sure, make it so, and if you can’t, then move to a State where like-minded people are making it so, just so, as you want it to be, in fact. That can’t happen in a consolidated Nation State or Monopoly involuntary government, where everyone is told to obey whatever the dictator’s demand – without question.

If you can see how a Democratic Federated Government is designed to work, in fact, then consider placing each person, based upon their preference, into the State that is common to their type. If all the counterfeit (criminal) Liberals want absolute despotism as was the case in Soviet Russia under Stalin and the Bolshevik regime, then those people would be working toward that end in their home, city, county, and State level, no more, that is as far as that infection spreads, and if that type of government can survive without resort to aggressive war for profit, then it does so, like North Korea, for as long as those people can stand to live under those conditions. In a Democratic Federated Republic, those people in that State are allowed to leave that State if they want, and no other State, in that Democratic Federated Republic has the legal power to force enslavement of anyone who decides to vote with their feet to a better State, no more than someone can now, right now, prevent someone from voting with their feet from a gated community to one that is not gated.

A State in a Democratic Federated Republic can be an almost exact copy of everything any Liberal (modern counterfeit version) desires, limited to that State, and not allowed to be infecting everyone who cares not to be so in the rest of the States in the voluntary Union, and at the same time to enforce slavery upon those free people in that State.

So why do all those counterfeit Liberals demand ONE MONOPOLY GOVERNMENT that will enforce their counterfeit government upon everyone in all the States?

Ask one. I can’t speak for them.

The same is true for the counterfeit Conservatives, or modern day Neo-Con Jobs. If it were a Democratic Federated Government, then your claims of what your government must be, according to you, can be easily contained within the boundaries of your head, or your family, or your neighborhood, and at the LOWEST form of government, your State, it can be, if enough of you desire it, internal to that State, and the same Liberty applies, to anyone wanting to get the hell out of your Neo-Con Job “paradise” according to you, they get to walk out, and you don’t get to stop them, harass them, tax them, or kidnap them once those slaves of your's run away from your involuntary association that you think is so good for you that you want to impose it on everyone else.



Can you repeat that? I didn't quite catch it.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Are you deef...

or something? :>

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~





Chapter 6
Lessons for Today

Duel Sovereignty Essential

Page 140

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy [not necessarily true democracies but where would GregP move to if he had a choice between a true democracy within the Federation or a false democracy within the Federation?]-to experiment with various policies and Programs [footnote 12]. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right."

What he said in my words or other words it matters not to me.


"Duel" soveriegnty?


The States are losing...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Not so fast

I have not checked in awhile so I can check again now.

Searching for the words States Utah Gold backed

Here is a link on some information:


"Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, lawmakers from 13 states, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina and Georgia, are seeking approval from their state governments to either issue their own alternative currency or explore it as an option. Just three years ago, only three states had similar proposals in place."

If, please, you could imagine how States would reassert their duel sovereignty (I'm not signing onto that term so much as just employing that term since you have read that term and presumably understand the context) how would that power struggle play out as States fight back against a despotic National Power Monopoly?


Look what Virginia is doing!



"The plan calls for spending $17,440 to create a 10-member commission, which would determine the “need, means and schedule for establishing a metallic-based monetary unit” — in other words, a return to a gold standard."


End the FED

The FED is ending as a power to purchase.

Hedging, or insurance, as investment, or employing earned power into securing earned power, or employing earned power into producing more power out of less power, are all things done in Liberty, since no one, in those actions, are deceiving, threatening, or employing violence upon the innocent during those hedges, insuring, investment power uses.

Since The FED is ending as a power to purchase there is in that sense a future whereby the FED is no longer a power to purchase.

What, if anything, will replace the FED as a power to purchase?

Why ask?

Why ask me?

Why not ask someone who knows better?

I have a competitive answer, to offer.

If a new Chinese based World Reserve Currency Power replaces The FED as The World Reserve Currency Power, then those people in Virginia, or Utah, or in any State on the Planet, may be thinking far enough ahead to hedge, insure, invest, and employ the power they still have in the work required to replace The FED with something better, instead of something worse, and as we all know, or at least I know, the people running Legal Crime at the False Federal Level are selling us out to the Chinese so anyone with half a brain knows that those criminals running Legal Crime at the False Federal Level cannot be counted on to help us when World War III follows through and the Chinese win, and then the Chinese gain that Fraud and Extortion Legal Crime known as World Reserve Currency POWER.

So you won't hear anyone else speak with accurate words as I do, but the facts are what they are, and so anyone looking can see the facts, and it really doesn't matter to the victims if you call the process being perpetrated on the victims by false names such as "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", "Extraordinary Rendition", or "Quantitative Easing".

Russia was sold out, that was a well recorded event, many writers, many witnesses, many well reported experiences, and that is what is happening here in America, the leadership (not the false leadership) is selling us out just like the leadership (not the false leadership) sold out Russia.

America may be sold out without World War III progressing into new lows of extreme destruction, making World War II look like the Rose Parade, but that is the direction currently being traveled.

Virginia, Utah, and other State employees, may veto the World War III movement, and this is what this competition does in fact.

This is competition in competition with Legal Fraud and Legal Extortion that is, in fact, The FED, or The IRS, or Wall Street, or The Dollar Hegemony, or whatever word accurately accounts for those most powerful among the human species who are pulling the strings.

This Gold backed currency move, in Virginia, and in Utah, and other States, will force The FED to either rapidly increase World War III, or go out of business for lack of funds.

That is great news, and it should be news that The President announces personally, so as to keep the citizens well informed as to just how bad things are in these United States, and, offer a ray of hope.


Yes, Cutting to the Chase

"That is great news, and it should be news that The President announces personally, so as to keep the citizens well informed as to just how bad things are in these United States, and, offer a ray of hope."

What a fresh of breath air as well as a ray of hope it would be to have that kind of president.

It's "dual"..

not "duel". :)

dual - a : consisting of two parts or elements or having two like parts : double b : having a double character or nature

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


I think the other word works better (but it was my mistake), so thanks.