“Access to your money can be blocked at the click of a button”

CHILLING: Here is what a cashless society really means.

From the ATM Industry Association:

A cashless society means no cash. Zero. It doesn’t mean mostly cashless and you can still use a ‘wee bit of cash here & there’. Cashless means fully digital, fully traceable, fully controlled. I think those who support a cashless society aren’t fully aware of what they are asking for. A cashless society means:

* If you are struggling with your mortgage on a particular month, you can’t do an odd job to get you through.

* Your child can’t go & help the local farmer to earn a bit of summer cash.

* No more cash slipped into the hands of a child as a good luck charm or from their grandparent when going on holidays.

* No more [cash] in birthday cards.

* No more piggy banks for your child to collect pocket money & to learn about the value of earning.

* No more cash for a rainy day fund or for that something special you have been putting £20 a week away for.

* No more nixers on the side because your wages barely cover the bills or put food on the table.

* No more charity collections [at church].

* No more selling bits & pieces from your home that you no longer want/need for a bit of cash in return.

* No more cash gifts from relatives or loved ones.

What a cashless society DOES GUARANTEE:

* Banks have full control of every single penny you own.

* Every transaction you make is recorded.

* All your movements & actions are traceable.

* Access to your money can be blocked at the click of a button when/if banks need ‘clarification’ from you which will take about 3 weeks, a thousand questions answered & five thousand passwords.

* You will have no choice but to declare & be taxed on every pound in your possession.

* The government WILL decide what you can & cannot purchase.

* If your transactions are deemed in any way questionable, by those who create the questions, your money will be frozen, ‘for your own good’.

Thank you, Robert Wenzel over at Economic Policy Journal.

Angela Davis refused to ply on behalf of prisoners of conscience

This was excellent. Here are Tom’s show notes.

Tom’s discussion opens with a tweet from Kaitlyn Greenidge:

And here Tom provides excellent background on Angela Davis that I’d never heard, points that smash the shaming efforts of Kaitlyn Greenidge.

Alright, let me tell you the story about Angela Davis or what you need to know about Angela Davis.  She ran for Vice President on the Communist Party ticket back in 1984.  She’s not one of these communists who says “The Soviet Union wasn’t real communism” or that “the countries behind the Iron Curtain weren’t real communism.”  She was genuinely unhappy when the Soviet Union collapsed.  And she visited these countries.  She was honored in these countries.  She won the Lenin Peace Prize in 1979.  She accepted the prize in Moscow.  She praised “the glorious name of Lenin” and “the great Bolshevik Revolution,” which was one of the worst events in world history.  And earlier than that, before that, she was given an Honorary Doctorate from Moscow State University.  This was not being done in the 1970s for normal people, or for good people. It was all for people who were mouthpieces for the regime.  East Germany, a horrible, repressive regime, she went over there in the 70s and praised them, praised the Soviet Union and East Germany, and when she was asked if she could get some dissident voices out of prison, if she could use her influence to release political prisoners in some of these regimes behind the Iron Curtain, her reply was “that the only reason you’d be in prison is that you were trying to undermine a socialist government, and, of course, we can’t allow that, so these people need to remain in prison.”  So this is the woman who somebody on Twitter, whose gotten a million likes and retweets, this is the woman that person is citing on behalf of prison abolition, woman who actively supported imprisoning people for political activity.  That’s what she supports–putting them in prison, and you’re gonna cite her for prison abolition.  These were prisoners of conscience she was asked to work on behalf of, and she wouldn’t do it.  Let them remain in prison.  That’s your prison abolitionist?!  That’s deranged, okay.  That’s not normal.  If it were reversed, and I cited some crazy right-winger on behalf of some cause . . . .

1969, Tate-La Bianca Murders

Fascinating interview.  O’Neill brings to light new details of the players involved both in the act and in the cover-up of the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders.  It’s long, but Joe Rogan keeps it going.  If you’re interested in this kind of subject, then don’t miss this interview.

Thanks to Charles Burris at LRC.

— into a bizarre labyrinthine world of intrigue and Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties. Longtime LRC readers are quite aware that most of my principal articles and blogs have focused upon the hidden subterranean history of the US, involving the deep state, power elite analysis, and other covert or clandestine forbidden topics. Join the over three million viewers of this fascinating in-depth interview which delves into one of the most arcane aspects of this sinister backstory which challenges ‘consensus reality,’ thus prompting unguarded readers/viewers to reassess their fragile mortality and understanding of base Establishment lies.

“the first thing that you might want to know about post-modernism is that it doesn’t have a shred of gratitude”

This is an excellent presentation, and it bears repeating. I posted this lecture three years ago and it was great then. But given the current destruction across the country and the foul, fetid theologies driving it, I think it is relevant to understand the underpinnings of the cultural destruction of the west being displayed on your television.

Thanks to Robert Wenzel

It’s a pervasive, pernicious, nihilistic, intellectually attractive doctrine that has yet come to public realization.  It absolutely dominates the Humanities and increasing the Social Sciences in the universities.  And what’s happening . . . you see, someone once said that “everybody is the unconscious proponent of a dead philosopher.”

The post-modernists completely reject the structures of western civilization, and I mean completely.  So I could give you an example in one term: Jacques Derrida, who’s head trickster of the post-modernist movement, regarded western culture as patriarchy as phallo-logo-centric.  What you see in western culture is the consequence of a male-dominated, oppressive, self-serving society.  You might say, well, you know, societies do tend to be self-serving and people in power do tend to act in their best interest but a tendency is not an absolute and that’s one of the things that needs to be considered continually.  There are no shortages of flaws in the manner in which we’ve structured our society, and compared to any hypothetical utopia, it’s an absolutely dismal wreck.  But compared to the rest of the world and the plight of other societies in the history of mankind, we’re doing pretty damn well, and we should be happy to be living in the society that we’re living in.

So the first thing that you might want to know about post-modernism is that it doesn’t have a shred of gratitude, and there’s something pathologically wrong with a person who doesn’t have any gratitude especially when they live in what so far is the best of all possible worlds.  And so if you’re not grateful, you’re driven by resentment.  Resentment is about the worst emotion you can experience apart from arrogance.  Resentment, arrogance, and deceit–there’s an evil triad for you.  And if you’re bitter about everything that’s happening around you despite the fact that you’re bathed in wealth, there’s something absolutely wrong with you.  You know the black community in the United States is the 18th wealthiest community, eighteenth wealthiest nation on the planet.  Now that doesn’t mean that the world.