Auberon’s slavery reference (1890)

https://archive.org/details/politicianinsigh00herbrich/page/n4

https://www.archive.org/stream/politicianinsigh00herbrich/politicianinsigh00herbrich_djvu.txt

 " Why should either two men live at the discretion of three, or three at the 
discretion of two ? Both propositions are absurd from a reasonable point of view. 
If being a slave and owning a slave are both wrong relations, what difference 
does it make whether there are a million slave-owners and one slave, or one 
slave-owner and a million slaves ? Do robbery and murder cease to be what they 
are if done by ninety-nine per cent, of the population ? Clear your ideas on the 
subject, Mr. Bramston, and see that numbers cannot affect the question of what is 
right and wrong. Suppose some man with the cunning brain of a Napoleon 
were to train and organize the Chinamen, and then should lead them to annex 
such parts of the West as they desired ; on your theory of numbers, if they 
exceeded the population of the country they appropriated it would be all right." 

" I do not say that it is a satisfactory answer; but might not a majority inside 
a country afford a right method of decision, without extending the rule to the case 
of one country against another?" 

" On what ground ? " said Markham. " From where are the rights to come 
which you have so suddenly discovered ? Do you think that the moral laws that 
govern men are made to appear and disappear at our convenience ? Forget that. "

The Victorian translation is “Do one”.

The rationale of mass invasion. It’s even argued by postmodernism a lifetime before it ‘came out’.

Democracy applies ONLY if the people are homogeneous (A People), mature adults (not manchildren or feckless fake tradwives pretending not to be leeches) and not weakened by sexual degeneracy (or they’ll vote in others’ resources to pay for their medical care, welfare, girlfriend’s cohabiting (living in sin) abortion. Sin begets sin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_rebellion
CHINOs present historically too:

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, successfully called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven.

What did they actually do? Rape the women and children. Kill any men who hadn’t deserted and tried to stop them.

The first commune. And they called for immigration to do it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=KJV

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm

Berean Literal Bible
For even when we were with you, we were commanding you this, that “if anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat.”

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

so Marx didn’t actually invent Communism, it was CHINOs

a plagiarizing Jew, really?

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

SJWs are hardly new.

https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_thessalonians/4.htm

But we urge you, brothers, to excel more and more and to aspire to live quietly, to attend to your own matters, and to work with your own hands, as we instructed you. Then you will behave properly toward outsiders,

Relying on foreigners for your employ is hardly anti-fragile.

This includes remote workers relying on Asian IT.

without being dependent on anyone.

Go Galt as much as possible and dedicate your time to worthy people of your choosing, not a civil servant tyrant.

MGTOW are acting like they invented being single because if they’re not edgy, bachelor doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. They might be compared with the dreaded spinster.

BoE: 97% of money, fake news

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

Broad money is made up of bank deposits — which are
essentially IOUs from commercial banks to households and
companies — and currency — mostly IOUs from the central
bank.(4)(5) Of the two types of broad money, bank deposits
make up the vast majority — 97% of the amount currently in
circulation.(6) And in the modern economy, those bank
deposits are mostly created by commercial banks
themselves

There’s the money shot for those claiming to have the ADDs.

Make a cup of tea.

Thousands of words. Vital if you like affording jack.

9,491w. #dead

There’s no such thing as a rich person.

The zeroes in their bank account are bullshit.

The credit “extended” by banks is like a limit on a credit card – it’s debt.

One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the
deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households, and banks then ‘lend out’ those existing deposits to borrowers,
for example to companies looking to finance investment or individuals wanting to purchase houses.

White people have based their life and work around a lie.

This opening also 100% contradicts the ending.

In fact, when households choose to save more money in bank accounts, those deposits come simply at the expense of deposits that would have otherwise gone to companies in payment for goods and services. Saving does not by itself increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend.

When guys think they can impress me with all the labour they “saved”… er, nah?

It’s a scam, mate.

You was robbed.

Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are the creators of deposit money.

All those rich people on TV believe in the banks.

This article explains how, rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.(3)

WTF, right?

Double negative plus profit!

Bloody Jews, same MO all over. It’s a wealth transfer. This is why usury is theft.

Reminder, BOE isn’t English nor nationalised. 

Corbyn wouldn’t dare

Remember this next when they blame “central banks” for their situation in the coming collapse.

Another common misconception is that the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money — the so-called ‘money multiplier’ approach. In that view, central banks implement monetary policy by choosing a quantity of reserves. And, because there is assumed to be a constant ratio of broad money to base money, these reserves are then ‘multiplied up’ to a much greater change in bank loans and deposits. For the theory to hold, the amount of reserves must be a binding constraint on lending, and the central bank must directly determine the amount of reserves.

The fraction of fractional reserve fame.

While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality.

Told ya so is implied at this point.

Rather than controlling the quantity of reserves, central banks today typically implement monetary policy by setting the price of reserves — that is, interest rates.
In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending,nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are available. As with the relationship between deposits and loans, the relationship between reserves and loans typically operates in the reverse way to that described in some economics textbooks. Banks first decide how much to lend depending on the profitable lending opportunities available to them — which will, crucially, depend on the interest rate set by the Bank of England.

Sounds like gambling, with monopoly money, because it is. A monopoly.

It is these lending decisions that determine how many bank deposits are created by the banking system. The amount of bank deposits in turn influences how much central bank money banks want to hold in reserve (to meet withdrawals by the public, make payments to other banks, or meet regulatory liquidity requirements), which is then, in normal times, supplied on demand by the Bank of England. The rest of this article discusses these practices in more detail.

Imagine my shock.

Following the reassuring title

Money creation in reality

Lending creates deposits — broad money
determination at the aggregate level
As explained in ‘Money in the modern economy: an
introduction’, broad money is a measure of the total amount
of money held by households and companies in the economy.
Broad money is made up of bank deposits — which are
essentially IOUs from commercial banks to households and
companies — and currency — mostly IOUs from the central
bank.(4)(5) Of the two types of broad money, bank deposits
make up the vast majority — 97% of the amount currently in
circulation.(6) And in the modern economy, those bank
deposits are mostly created by commercial banks
themselves.

I love it when American a-holes laugh at me for just explaining this like, fine, trust the banks.

Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans.

One of the funniest sentences ever written.

Closely followed by:

At that moment, new money is created. For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as ‘fountain pen money’, created at the stroke of bankers’ pens when they approve loans.(1)

FOUNTAIN PEN MONEY

FOUNTAIN PEN MONEY

FUNIE MONEY

Most people don’t get the joke.

Figure 1 is a nifty illustration of debt slavery.

As shown in the third row of Figure 1, the new deposits increase the assets of the consumer (here taken to represent households and companies) — the extra red bars — and the new loan increases their liabilities — the extra white bars. New broad money has been created. Similarly, both sides of the
commercial banking sector’s balance sheet increase as new money and loans are created. It is important to note that although the simplified diagram of Figure 1 shows the amount of new money created as being identical to the amount of new lending, in practice there will be several factors that may subsequently cause the amount of deposits to be different from the amount of lending. These are discussed in detail in the next section.

It’s such a fucking con. One day…

For no apparent reason they were kicked out of ..everywhere.

For no apparent reason, …people were mad with rage.

For no apparent reason, millions of people wanted them dead.

…More than once.

Okay.

The new term for slave-driver is banker.

Serfdom is rebranded with better PR as property and council tax.

And reserves are, in normal times, supplied ‘on demand’ by the Bank of England to commercial banks in
exchange for other assets on their balance sheets.

Speaking of stealing from the worker, comrade…

In no way does the aggregate quantity of reserves directly constrain the amount of bank lending or deposit creation. 
This description of money creation contrasts with the notion that banks can only lend out pre-existing money, outlined in the previous section.

They act like they didn’t spread these fairytales.

This is why the People dragged Cromwell through the streets as a traitor but these people put a statue of him outside Parliament.

Bank deposits are simply a record of how much the bank itself owes its customers. So they are a liability of the bank, not an asset that could be lent out. A related misconception is that banks can lend out their reserves. Reserves can only be lent between banks, since consumers do not have access to reserves accounts at the Bank of England.(2)

Why is that, dya think? Wrong tribe. Hat too big.

How many workers would down tools at this information?

They HATE you. Go Galt, as much as possible.

You’re a customer because you buy their ‘product’ of fake fiat money.

It gets weirder.

Just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of bank loans destroys money.(3)

….What?

For example, suppose a consumer has spent money in the supermarket throughout the month by using a credit card. Each purchase made using the credit card will have increased the outstanding loans on the
consumer’s balance sheet and the deposits on the supermarket’s balance sheet (in a similar way to that shown in Figure 1). If the consumer were then to pay their credit card bill in full at the end of the month, its bank would reduce the amount of deposits in the consumer’s account by the value of the credit card bill, thus destroying all of the newly created money.

But that anecdote is credit card, not debit…

Banks making loans and consumers repaying them are the most significant ways in which bank deposits are created and destroyed in the modern economy. But they are far from the only ways. Deposit creation or destruction will also occur any time the banking sector (including the central bank) buys or sells existing assets from or to consumers, or, more often, from companies or the government.

Asset bubbles.

Banks buying and selling government bonds is one particularly important way in which the purchase or sale of existing assets by banks creates and destroys money. Banks often buy and hold government bonds as part of their portfolio of liquid assets that can be sold on quickly for central bank money if,
for example, depositors want to withdraw currency in large amounts.(1) When banks purchase government bonds from the non-bank private sector they credit the sellers with bank deposits.(2) And, as discussed later in this article, central bank asset purchases, known as quantitative easing (QE), have
similar implications for money creation.
Money can also be destroyed through the issuance of long-term debt and equity instruments by banks. In addition to deposits, banks hold other liabilities on their balance sheets.
Banks manage their liabilities to ensure that they have at least some capital and longer-term debt liabilities to mitigate certain risks and meet regulatory requirements. Because these ‘non-deposit’ liabilities represent longer-term investments in the banking system by households and companies, they cannot be exchanged for currency as easily as bank deposits, and therefore increase the resilience of the bank.

Faith. An article of faith. In bankers we trust.
Almost like the whole system was designed by people who wanted to get out of dodge if desired but entrap people into it in the mean time.

When banks issue these longer-term debt and equity instruments to non-bank financial companies, those companies pay for them with bank deposits. That reduces the amount of deposit, or money, liabilities on the banking sector’s balance sheet and increases their non-deposit liabilities.(3)

This isn’t taught in schools.

The schools exist so as NOT to teach this.

Buying and selling of existing assets and issuing longer-term liabilities may lead to a gap between lending and deposits in a closed economy. Additionally, in an open economy such as the United Kingdom, deposits can pass from domestic residents to overseas residents, or sterling deposits could be converted into foreign currency deposits.

We need national capitalism. It’s plain to see. Treeeeeeason.

These transactions do not destroy money per se,

Misuse of per se if ever I saw one.

but overseas residents’ deposits and foreign currency deposits are not always counted as part of a country’s money supply.

trans. Yes, we and they rob you blind but it’s good for us.

This is why capitalism must be NATIONAL. Do not let the cronies escape.

Why negative rates basically must happen:

Limits to broad money creation
Although commercial banks create money through their lending behaviour, they cannot in practice do so without limit. In particular, the price of loans — that is, the interest rate (plus any fees) charged by banks — determines the amount that households and companies will want to borrow. A number of
factors influence the price of new lending, not least the monetary policy of the Bank of England, which affects the level of various interest rates in the economy.
The limits to money creation by the banking system were discussed in a paper by Nobel Prize winning economist James Tobin and this topic has recently been the subject of debate among a number of economic commentators and bloggers.(4) In the modern economy there are three main sets
of constraints that restrict the amount of money that banks can create.
(i) Banks themselves face limits on how much they can lend. In particular:
• Market forces constrain lending because individual
banks have to be able to lend profitably in a competitive
market.

muh “market forces”

also what competition?

• Lending is also constrained because banks have to take
steps to mitigate the risks associated with making
additional loans.

haha …ha

• Regulatory policy acts as a constraint on banks’
activities in order to mitigate a build-up of risks that
could pose a threat to the stability of the financial
system.

No, they got those revoked.

(ii) Money creation is also constrained by the behaviour of
the money holders — households and businesses.
Households and companies who receive the newly created
money might respond by undertaking transactions that
immediately destroy it, for example by repaying
outstanding loans.

The goy must be stopped!

Saved from their own responsibility and impulse to freedom!

Buy partial stocks in Impossibru Burger!

It’s never a profit unless you cash it out.

(iii) The ultimate constraint on money creation is monetary
policy.

Monetary policy is a fairytale used to scare young Jews. It has never really existed.

Along with the old one “fiscal responsibility”.

Where? When?

Nowhere. Never.

By influencing the level of interest rates in the economy, the Bank of England’s monetary policy affects
how much households and companies want to borrow. This occurs both directly, through influencing the loan rates charged by banks, but also indirectly through the overall effect of monetary policy on economic activity in the economy.

Leprechaun farts, got it.

As a result, the Bank of England is able to ensure that money growth is consistent with its objective of low and stable inflation.

Subtle and permanent enslavement.

You’re already treading water but seem to move. It’s just your legs.

The remainder of this section explains how each of these mechanisms work in practice.
(i) Limits on how much banks can lend

Market forces facing individual banks
Figure 1 showed how, for the aggregate banking sector, loans are initially created with matching deposits. But that does not mean that any given individual bank can freely lend and create
money without limit. That is because banks have to be able to lend profitably in a competitive market, and ensure that they adequately manage the risks associated with making loans.

Banks are famous in this era for lending profitably.

To whose profit, who can say?

Banks receive interest payments on their assets, such as loans,

Debt = asset

How can they receive …payment… on a debt they…? Wait, what?

but they also generally have to pay interest on their liabilities, such as savings accounts. A bank’s business model relies on receiving a higher interest rate on the loans (or other assets) than the rate it pays out on its deposits (or other liabilities).

They hate workers.

Introduce a capital gains tax with a rate well over income.

Introduce a net worth tax kicking in at 10 million. Watch the rats scurry. No lefty is allowed to suggest it.

Audit their money for corruption.

Do not feel guilty about time off.

Interest rates on both banks’ assets and liabilities depend on the policy rate set by the Bank of England, which acts as the ultimate constraint on money creation.

Yes, you read that right.

The ultimate constraint on the bank being evil is…

….

the bank.

The commercial bank uses the difference, or spread, between the expected return on their assets and liabilities to cover its operating costs and to make profits.(1)

BANKS MAKE NOTHING.

Debt is not profit.

Usury is that Big Lie.

In order to make extra loans, an individual bank will typically have to lower its loan rates relative to its competitors to induce households and companies to borrow more. And once it has made the loan it may well ‘lose’ the deposits it has created to those competing banks.

Screwing people is only bad when it happens to them.

LOL at ‘lose’

Can you lose at your own casino?

Both of these factors affect the profitability of making a loan for an individual bank and influence how much borrowing takes place.

How many businesses are allowed to start nationally.

Why is GDP in the shitter?

For example, suppose an individual bank lowers the rate it charges on its loans, and that attracts a household to take out a mortgage to buy a house. The moment the mortgage loan is made, the household’s account is credited with new deposits.
And once they purchase the house, they pass their new deposits on to the house seller. This situation is shown in the first row of Figure 2. The buyer is left with a new asset in the form of a house and a new liability in the form of a new loan. 

They never give without taking more.

I don’t blame the Boomers for falling for some of this but… all of it?

People used to be able to buy a home outright, this was the norm until they convinced that generation a mortgage was normal. In a way, Boomers are history’s biggest suckers.

The seller is left with money in the form of bank deposits instead of a house.

97% of the economy. Crap. Abject crap.

Butter used to be half a penny less than a century ago. This is why.

This keeps you tapped into their system, since you must park the ‘profit’…. in ANOTHER BANK.

It is more likely than not that the seller’s account will be with a different bank to the buyer’s. So when the transaction takes place, the new deposits will be transferred to the seller’s bank, as shown in the second row of Figure 2.

The buyer’s bank would then have fewer deposits than assets. In the first instance, the buyer’s bank settles with the seller’s bank by transferring reserves. But that would leave the buyer’s bank with fewer reserves and more loans relative to its deposits than before. This is likely to be problematic for the bank since it would increase the risk that it would not be able to meet all of its likely outflows. And, in practice, banks make many such loans every day. So if a given bank financed all of its new loans in this way, it would soon run out of reserves.

trans. They don’t want you buying assets, they want you selling them!

This includes “foreclosure”, selling to them. Buying assets, you give away their money for something real and give away their hold on you, to a degree. Since you can take the asset elsewhere as net worth or sell it to pay down debt. Sure, it scuppers the competition but the system is rigged. Selling assets, it adds to the pool since somebody needs to borrow to buy or the banks can step in and ‘buy’ it, while allowing them to cash out at a higher price when you deposit it back… with them.

A profit. You grew their money for them. Deposits are liabilities but ….97%.

Of the fake money economy. They’ve been doing this for a while.

Banks therefore try to attract or retain additional liabilities to accompany their new loans. In practice other banks would also be making new loans and creating new deposits, so one way they can do this is to try and attract some of those newly created deposits. In a competitive banking sector, that may
involve increasing the rate they offer to households on their savings accounts. By attracting new deposits, the bank can increase its lending without running down its reserves, as shown in the third row of Figure 2.

By hooking new fish, the hook becomes useful again after gutting the old fish.

So much for loyalty.

Alternatively, a bank can borrow from other banks or attract other forms of liabilities, at least temporarily. But whether through deposits or other liabilities, the bank would need to make sure it was attracting and retaining some kind of funds in order to keep expanding lending.

Why bankers hate Gens Y and Z. They have no money.

But unlike other generations, they actually know this.

And the cost of that needs to be measured against the interest the bank expects to earn on the loans it is making, which in turn depends on the level of Bank Rate set by the Bank of England. For example, if a bank continued to attract new borrowers and increase lending by reducing mortgage rates, and sought to attract new deposits by increasing the rates it was paying on its customers’deposits, it might soon find it unprofitable to keep expanding its lending. Competition for loans and deposits, and the desire to make a profit, therefore limit money creation by banks.

They need to screw you because it’s their job, have some sympathy. Tiffani needs a new yacht.

They can’t enable young people to have any savings or (gasp) net worth, while the old people are dumb enough to be on their fourth remortgage. It’s a see-saw.

If interest rates went up before they went negative, the margin call would leave the stupid unable to borrow.

We can’t have THAT.

[see Best Post]

The cliche Boomers and their reckless ilk must be bailed-out at all costs.

At ALL costs.

Our elders are criticizing us because we see past their BS.

Managing the risks associated with making loans

pull the other one

Banks also need to manage the risks associated with making new loans. One way in which they do this is by making sure that they attract relatively stable deposits to match their new loans, that is, deposits that are unlikely or unable to be withdrawn in large amounts. This can act as an additional limit to how much banks can lend. For example, if all of the deposits that a bank held were in the form of instant access accounts, such as current accounts, then the bank might run the risk of lots of these deposits being withdrawn in a short period of time. Because banks tend to lend for periods of many months or years, the bank may not be able to repay all of those deposits — it would face a great deal of liquidity risk. In order to reduce liquidity risk, banks try to make sure that some of their deposits are fixed for a certain period of time, or term.(2) Consumers are likely to require compensation for the inconvenience of holding longer-term deposits, however, so these are likely to be more costly for banks, limiting the amount of lending banks wish to do. And as discussed earlier, if banks guard against liquidity risk by issuing long-term liabilities, this may destroy money directly when companies pay for them using deposits. Individual banks’ lending is also limited by considerations of credit risk.

The bank manager is there to manage you.

Credit score = Sucker rating.

This is the risk to the bank of lending to borrowers who turn out to be unable to repay their loans.

Or unwilling.

They rely on your ignorance.

In part, banks can guard against credit risk by having sufficient capital to absorb any unexpected losses on their loans.

If it’s unexpected, how can they calculate it?

Never mind.

But since loans will always involve some risk to banks of incurring losses, the cost of these losses will be taken into account when pricing loans. When a bank makes a loan, the interest rate it charges will typically include compensation for the average level of credit losses the bank expects to suffer. The size of this component of the interest rate will be larger when banks estimate that they will suffer higher losses, for example when lending to mortgagors with a high loan to value ratio. As banks expand lending, their average expected loss per loan is likely to increase, making those loans less profitable. This further limits the amount of lending banks can profitably do, and the money they can therefore create.

Mortgages in one.

But prices can never go down!

Market forces do not always lead individual banks to sufficiently protect themselves against liquidity and credit risks.

pffffffffffffft

Because of this, prudential regulation aims to ensure that banks do not take excessive risks when making new loans, including via requirements for banks’ capital and liquidity positions. These requirements can therefore act as an additional brake on how much money commercial banks create by lending. The prudential regulatory framework, along with more detail on capital and liquidity, is described in Farag,
Harland and Nixon (2013). So far this section has considered the case of an individual bank making additional loans by offering competitive interest rates — both on its loans and deposits. But if all banks simultaneously decide to try to do more lending, money growth may not be limited in quite the same way.

A con.

That is called… a con.

Short for conspiracy.

The silly idea that someone, somewhere, is trying to fuck you.

Although an individual bank may lose deposits to other banks, it would itself be likely to gain some deposits as a result of the other banks making loans. 

Why oh WHY do they want a ‘cashless’ society?

YOU CAN NEVER LEAVE.

Every step you take, every move you make… must be sanctioned by your Woke Overlords.

There are a number of reasons why many banks may choose
to increase their lending markedly at the same time. For
example, the profitability of lending at given interest rates
could increase because of a general improvement in economic
conditions. Alternatively, banks may decide to lend more if
they perceive the risks associated with making loans to
households and companies to have fallen. This sort of
development is sometimes argued to be one of the reasons
why bank lending expanded so much in the lead up to the
financial crisis.(1) But if that perception of a less risky
environment were unwarranted, the result could be a more
fragile financial system.(2)

This is a public BOE admission.

One of the responses to the crisis in
the United Kingdom has been the creation of a
macroprudential authority, the Financial Policy Committee, to
identify, monitor and take action to reduce or remove risks
which threaten the resilience of the financial system as a
whole.(3)

Can they bring bayonets?

(ii) Constraints arising from the response of households
and companies
In addition to the range of constraints facing banks that act to
limit money creation, the behaviour of households and
companies in response to money creation by the banking
sector can also be important, as argued by Tobin. The
behaviour of the non-bank private sector influences the
ultimate impact that credit creation by the banking sector has
on the stock of money because more (or less) money may be
created than they wish to hold relative to other assets (such as
property or shares).

Has… on the stock of MONEY.

How quickly is your value inflated away? Zero isn’t an option.

As the households and companies who
take out loans do so because they want to spend more, they
will quickly pass that money on to others as they do so. How
those households and companies then respond will determine
the stock of money in the economy, and potentially have
implications for spending and inflation.
There are two main possibilities for what could happen to
newly created deposits. First, as suggested by Tobin, the
money may quickly be destroyed if the households or
companies receiving the money after the loan is spent wish to
use it to repay their own outstanding bank loans. This is
sometimes referred to as the ‘reflux theory’.(4)
For example, a first-time house buyer may take out a
mortgage to purchase a house from an elderly person who, in
turn, repays their existing mortgage and moves in with their
family.

Why they hate extended family.

As discussed earlier, repaying bank loans destroys
money just as making loans creates it. So, in this case, the
balance sheet of consumers in the economy would be
returned to the position it was in before the loan was made.

Responsibility screws bankers.

The second possible outcome is that the extra money creation
by banks can lead to more spending in the economy.

Ah, the hippy view. Materialism enabling hedonism larping as spiritualism.

For newly created money to be destroyed, it needs to pass to
households and companies with existing loans who want to
repay them. But this will not always be the case, since asset
and debt holdings tend to vary considerably across individuals

in the economy.(5)

If you wake up, they lose.

“Neither buyer nor lender be”.

Yes, this con is literally as old as the sodding Bible.

It’s literally referring to this caveat.

Why they hate Christians.

Debtor’s prisons never went away, you know.

Instead, the money may initially pass to
households or companies with positive holdings of financial
assets: the elderly person may have already paid off their
mortgage, or a company receiving money as a payment may
already have sufficient liquid assets to cover possible
outgoings. They may then be left holding more money than
they desire, and attempt to reduce their ‘excess’ money
holdings by increasing their spending on goods and services.

Without inflation, there’d be no impulse to drop the hot potato.

…By feeding into the fiat ponzi.

“Infinite growth” model, Cancer Economy.

Cancer of the People.

No inflation? Gold-backing?

Imagine: ACTUAL savings.

If the poor didn’t need to buy computers to train, work remotely or put in job applications, computer companies might go bust. Remember that the next time someone’s complaining why the poor buy so much.

Because they sodding have to. Their parents gave them nothing.

Rank classism.

(In the case of a company it may instead buy other,
higher-yielding, assets.)

Buying shinier shit is better.

These two scenarios for what happens to newly created
money — being quickly destroyed or being passed on via
spending — have very different implications for economic
activity. In the latter, the money may continue to be passed
between different households and companies each of whom
may, in turn, increase their spending. This process —
sometimes referred to as the ‘hot potato’ effect

can lead, other things equal, to increased inflationary pressure on the
economy.(6)

Blaming the population instead of themselves.

Typical.

Inflation is caused by poor people needing stuff to live, the bastards – bankers picking inflation rates.

As soon as the poor people start to gain traction with their labour, which is the only true value in an economy, their net worth is yanked back with more inflation. A donkey running with a carrot just out of reach.

Really. So when the poor had fewer children from reduced mortality, immigration just HAD to happen…

Why they hate K-types and K-selection.

They want the value but not the values. Like all leeches.

Look for patterns. If poor people saved up and took time off for the kids, middle-class people might need a real job!

Whose labour do they all borrow against? Not Owen Jones.

This is why poverty always exists. The poor are not poor in effort, merely credit.

They tread water against inflation and, if unemployed, the welfare cliff.

Mark my discussion of classism against that of the hive Marxist. Mine fits.

The middle-class must die for the people to survive. Basically. This aligns with reality.

What is the middle-class today but screwing its national interests? It’s doomed to die, let it.

What next?

I’ve written about deflation followed by hyper. Yonks ago.

In contrast, if the money is quickly destroyed as in the former
scenario, there need be no further effects on the economy.
This section has so far discussed how the actions of banks,
households and companies can affect the amount of money in
the economy, and therefore inflationary pressure.

The hand holding the poor down for your cronies and sockpuppets.

But the ultimate determinant of monetary conditions in the economy
is the monetary policy of the central bank.
(iii) Monetary policy — the ultimate constraint on money
creation

lol

One of the Bank of England’s primary objectives is to ensure
monetary stability by keeping consumer price inflation on
track to meet the 2% target set by the Government.

How much do you imagine the working class can save?

And, as discussed in the box on pages 22–23, over some periods of
time, various measures of money have grown at a similar rate
to nominal spending, which determines inflationary pressure
in the economy in the medium term. So setting monetary
policy appropriately to meet the inflation target should
ultimately ensure a stable rate of credit and money creation
consistent with meeting that target. This section explains the
relationship between monetary policy and different types of
money.

Target. But that’s passive English. Target who?

Inflation oppresses the working poor. Every year, the net worth of your labour dwindles.

Despite that being the actual economy. The work. The stuff made. 

Fiat is Marxist because all you ‘own’ is taxed via their system, especially inflation.

How can rates go down while VAT goes up?

In normal times, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), like
most of its equivalents in other countries, implements
monetary policy by setting short-term interest rates,
specifically by setting the interest rate paid on central bank
reserves held by commercial banks. It is able to do so because

of the Bank’s position as the monopoly provider of central
bank money in the United Kingdom.

Monopoly money.

And it is because there is demand for central bank money — the ultimate means of
settlement for banks, the creators of broad money — that the
price of reserves has a meaningful impact on other interest
rates in the economy.

“Our money is legit because we say so!”

Circular reasoning.

There is only ‘demand’ because they have that monopoly.

The interest rate that commercial banks can obtain on money
placed at the central bank influences the rate at which they
are willing to lend on similar terms in sterling money markets
the markets in which the Bank and commercial banks lend
to each other and other financial institutions.

Race to the bottom.

“I’ll agree it’s real if you agree it’s real”

No clothes.

The exact
details of how the Bank uses its money market operations to
implement monetary policy has varied over time, and central
bank operating procedures today differ somewhat from
country to country, as discussed in Clews, Salmon and
Weeken (2010).(1) Changes in interbank interest rates then
feed through to a wider range of interest rates in different
markets and at different maturities, including the interest
rates that banks charge borrowers for loans and offer savers
for deposits.(2)

Don’t question the system or how we screw you nationally by jurisdiction.

Never ever compare notes.

By influencing the price of credit in this way,

price of

price of credit

monetary policy affects the creation of broad money.

And imagine how awful credit cards will be in a cashless system!

Laziness went from gold bars into coins to lighter notes and now to a single card, like the classic aristocrat who never carried money and put it all “on the tab”, allowing them to run up huge debts without noticing…. oh.

It’s a calling card. That’s clever.

One century at a time. Devious.

But the banks must vouch for everyone… and their wokeness.

I wouldn’t be shocked if the mark of the beast turned out to be a dollar sign. Honestly nope.

This description of the relationship between monetary policy
and money differs from the description in many introductory
textbooks, where central banks determine the quantity of
broad money via a ‘money multiplier’ by actively varying the
quantity of reserves.(3) In that view, central banks implement
monetary policy by choosing the quantity of reserves. And,
because there is assumed to be a stable ratio of broad money
to base money, these reserves are then ‘multiplied up’ to a
much greater change in bank deposits as banks increase
lending and deposits.
Neither step in that story represents an accurate description of
the relationship between money and monetary policy in the
modern economy. Central banks do not typically choose a
quantity of reserves to bring about the desired short-term
interest rate.(4) Rather, they focus on prices — setting
interest rates.(5)

You work – but they tell you how much you can charge. Human rights issue?

The Bank of England controls interest rates
by supplying and remunerating reserves at its chosen policy
rate.

They ref their own game and, wow, always win! Such talent!

The supply of both reserves and currency (which
together make up base money) is determined by banks’
demand for reserves both for the settlement of payments and
to meet demand for currency from their customers — demand
that the central bank typically accommodates.
This demand for base money is therefore more likely to be a
consequence rather than a cause of banks making loans and
creating broad money.

Forcing demand for your own product – Marxism. So great they have to build walls to keep you IN.

The only MOP that matters is the national currency printing press the national people are forced to use by threat of violence, run by international traitors. You cannot produce jack shit (even a humble sickle and hammer) without translating it into shitty fiat at some point, diluting the value of you, your labour. This is why nobody wants to run to the gold standard for their country, demand for their currency would drown them, drown the people too. Crushing by stampede, they give you a world of 90-something % fake money for your real? No comprendez.

Yet no Labour protests at the BOE. Edgelords.

But then there’s national debt being backed by non-alloidal property (where you pay property tax, so serf rent). Another can of worms on the grave of the West.

This is because banks’ decisions to extend credit are based on the availability of profitable lending
opportunities at any given point in time.

It is RIGGED.

The profitability of making a loan will depend on a number of factors, as discussed earlier. One of these is the cost of funds that banks face, which is closely related to the interest rate paid on reserves, the policy rate.

The policy to screw you until just before you die.

Emperor’s Clothes… as a clothing line.

In contrast, the quantity of reserves already in the system does
not constrain the creation of broad money through the act of
lending.(6) This leg of the money multiplier is sometimes
motivated by appealing to central bank reserve requirements,
whereby banks are obliged to hold a minimum amount of
reserves equal to a fixed proportion of their holdings of
deposits. But reserve requirements are not an important
aspect of monetary policy frameworks in most advanced
economies today.(7)
A looser stance of monetary policy is likely to increase the
stock of broad money

it’s at 97%

what happens at 100?

by reducing loan rates and increasing
the volume of loans. And a larger stock of broad money,
accompanied by an increased level of spending in the
economy, may cause banks and customers to demand more
reserves and currency.(8)

Nice bait and switch.

So they rely on you being thick.

So, in reality, the theory of the
money multiplier operates in the reverse way to that normally
described.

Writing this is exhausting.

A-fucking-pparently. 

They’ll increase reserves of fake money LATER when the economy’s stuffed safer with other fake money.

Heard it here first. You can build the roof before the walls and it magically fucking FLOATS.

And then, one day… for no reason at all…

QE — creating broad money directly with
monetary policy

#rubs hands#

also, “monetary policy”

The previous section discussed how monetary policy can be
seen as the ultimate limit to money creation by commercial
banks.

In the same way a pimp is the ultimate limit on how many times you can see his hooker.

But commercial banks could alternatively create too
little money to be consistent with the economy meeting the
inflation target.

Inflation target clearly a dog whistle.

In normal times, the MPC can respond by
lowering the policy rate to encourage more lending and hence
more money creation. But, in response to the financial crisis,
the MPC cut Bank Rate to 0.5% — the so-called effective
lower bound.
Once short-term interest rates reach the effective lower
bound, it is not possible for the central bank to provide further
stimulus to the economy by lowering the rate at which
reserves are remunerated.(9)

How awful, let’s get rid of those pesky limits!

Surely the stimulus is…. the worker?

And what if the rate’s negative but nobody wants to borrow because prices are too high?

Young people have the luxury of waiting, Boomers.

One possible way of providing
further monetary stimulus to the economy is through a
programme of asset purchases (QE). Like reductions in Bank

I missed out the blue section for clarity.

Suffice to say

(((asset)))

(((purchases)))

Rate, asset purchases are a way in which the MPC can loosen
the stance of monetary policy in order to stimulate economic
activity and meet its inflation target. But the role of money in
the two policies is not the same.

Stimulate the economy? How about support domestic, law-abiding, tax-paying workers?

You can stimulate appetite by throwing up, that’s Keynesian-ism, folks!

Fiat anorexia. The banks always need more food and lifeblood of the populace, despite getting fat already, they need more bail outs, more bail ins, more debt. The people are always fine, corporations are people.

Communism is pretty much cashless. They know where all the assets are. No hiding.

On a related note, a word about “credit scores”.

(((Credit scores)))

It’s called or considered a “sucker score” in banking because it tells you(r manager) how easy it is to sell that person on new debt or newfangled “financial products” that “repackage” high risk as shiny and hot (shit, like a fresh pile of steaming dog shit) – that’s why they make it so hard to push past certain levels of the score, so you’ll keep cock-surfing them financially like a greedy little rat pushing a lever, kinda like the guys who brag about their MENSA score they got age 12 (that no longer counts) they KNOW men will brag about it.

Women don’t care. Women care about savings. The mere fact you have them.

It could be ten bucks or ten million. This has been a PSA to never ever tell a woman your sucker score. Don’t tell men either. They’ll hate you or they’ll feel superior to you. Just don’t do it. Never complain, never explain.

QE involves a shift in the focus of monetary policy to the
quantity of money: the central bank purchases a quantity of
assets, financed by the creation of broad money and a
corresponding increase in the amount of central bank reserves.

A shift in sexual position to screw you a little harder, a little deeper, in a way you won’t feel until morning.

You may purchase a quantity of lubricant, alas, it is futile.

There is a corresponding increase in anal bleed.

Prolapse imminent.

Poor analogy.

The sellers of the assets will be left holding the newly created
deposits in place of government bonds. They will be likely to
be holding more money than they would like,

when has a human in history ever held more actual money than they’d like?

relative to other assets that they wish to hold. They will therefore want to
rebalance their portfolios,

ah, the illusion of choice

casino A or casino B

you’re a smart panda, pat pat

Buy Japan. Huge opportunity (for loss).

for example by using the new deposits to buy higher-yielding assets such as bonds and
shares issued by companies — leading to the ‘hot potato’
effect discussed earlier.

Keynesian bloat.

Could be plague.

Forcing people to spend their ‘money’ isn’t a hyper-inflationary culture, don’t be silly!

Did bills go up last quarter? Exactly.

Also, yield is priced according to public perception of risk.

How many dudebro investors don’t know this?

It’s one email removed from the Nigerian prince scam.

If you won’t make back the principal invested, you lost. Add up how many years that would take with an average rate of returns. See how much longer that is than expected? Maths is hard. They priced in your gullibility**. All the “rich white guy” investor stories in Hollywood produced a flux of interest from the lay public, preventing a huge reset in the 80s. When it ought to have first happened.

They had a good run since the Depression they caused, half a century.

**”Investor confidence”.

It’s a complete (((coincidence))) they made Wolf on Wall Street recently for the now-largest demo, Millennials, to suddenly, by their own special snowflake super individual decision making, suddenly choose to get into it.

Sure.

And to drive the point home with young men, a reverse psychology campaign.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/10767-the-wolf-of-wall-street-is-the-years-most-misogynist-blockbuster

Compared to the actual film:

Sure you did, bucko.

This will raise the value of those
assets

It doesn’t raise VALUE but PRICE.

By increasing VALUATION.

Vive le sodding difference.

and lower the cost to companies of raising funds in
these markets.

“funds”

So rich people irresponsible with money are entrusted with more of it.

That, in turn, should lead to higher spending in
the economy.(1)

Money’s at the wrong end!

The way in which QE works

If a thing works, dear boy, we need only do it once.

Hiroshima was just showing off.

therefore differs
from two common misconceptions about central bank asset
purchases:

misconceptions or lies?

YOU DECIDE

jk your opinion means nothing

like their fiat

that QE involves giving banks ‘free money’;

free to them

and
that the key aim of QE is to increase bank lending by providing
more reserves to the banking system, as might be described by
the money multiplier theory. This section explains the
relationship between money and QE and dispels these
misconceptions.

Reserves are a myth, like deposits.

What are deposits backed by, again?

The link between QE and quantities of money
QE has a direct effect on the quantities of both base and broad
money because of the way in which the Bank carries out its
asset purchases. The policy aims to buy assets, government
bonds, mainly from non-bank financial companies, such as
pension funds or insurance companies.

Two things you should never trust.

Consider, for example,
the purchase of £1 billion of government bonds from a pension
fund.

Naturally, crony capitalism is a crazy conspiracy theory.

I mean, where’s the evidence?

One way in which the Bank could carry out the purchase
would be to print £1 billion of banknotes and swap these
directly with the pension fund.

One way, that is.

Erm, call me old-fashioned, but where is the value creation there?

I mean, I have a stack of Monopoly paper, can I play?

I’ve been practicing my dreidel, if that helps? I’m pretty sure I summoned a demon.

But transacting in such large
quantities of banknotes is impractical. These sorts of
transactions are therefore carried out using electronic forms of
money.

Clearly the superior choice.

No borders.

As the pension fund does not hold a reserves account with the
Bank of England, the commercial bank with whom they hold a
bank account is used as an intermediary.

That whooshing sound is your life draining away to pay for people who call you lazy.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/06/18/uk-k-shift/

But don’t tax capital gains even on PAR with income because something something envy.

Let the rich families financially kneecap the poor families before the race of effort starts, that’s only fair.

The pension fund’s bank credits the pension fund’s account with £1 billion of
deposits in exchange for the government bonds.

Yes, imaginary deposits.

This is the BoE telling you this.

Gilts, huh? But I thought nationalism bad? Regardless they’re trying to move a lot of old (18th century!) debt off the books.
https://www.rt.com/uk/238969-ww1-debt-uk-repaid/

What do they know?

“The move comes as the Treasury attempts to remove all six of its remaining undated gilts in its portfolio, including some debt originally issued in the era of the South Sea Bubble in the 18th century.”

Before you get excited, “start” paying off. 2014:

“In October last year, Chancellor George Osborne announced the UK would start paying off the remaining debt of around £2 billion, having until then paid £1.26 billion in total interest on the bonds.

In December, Osborne said: “We can, at last, pay off the debts Britain incurred to fight the First World War.”

1914 – 2014 = “start”

But trust the banks with your life… savings. You’ll get it back in a century, maybe.

Crony capitalism is clearly fake news. There is no evidence of conspiracy between bank and government.

You must trust both or only one depending on who the puppet is this week.

We have always and never been in debt.

This is shown in the first panel of Figure 3. The Bank of England finances its
purchase by crediting reserves to the pension fund’s bank — it
gives the commercial bank an IOU (second row). The
commercial bank’s balance sheet expands: new deposit
liabilities are matched with an asset in the form of new
reserves (third row).

…..

Two misconceptions about how QE works

You keep using that word.

Why the extra reserves are not ‘free money’ for banks

Bless you for lasting this long.

Typing and formatting this is killing me.

While the central bank’s asset purchases involve — and affect
— commercial banks’ balance sheets, the primary role of those
banks is as an intermediary to facilitate the transaction
between the central bank and the pension fund.

Okay, abolish the middle man.

Or re-establish them as the source (what’s one private entity over another?) and abolish the central banks.

You literally admit they’re unnecessary.

The additional reserves shown in Figure 3 are simply a by-product
of this transaction.

It is sometimes argued that, because they
are assets held by commercial banks that earn interest, these
reserves represent ‘free money’ for banks.

Yeah. That’s called logic.

It can be argued and it is also true.

While banks do earn interest on the newly created reserves,
QE also creates an accompanying liability for the bank in the
form of the pension fund’s deposit, which the bank will itself
typically have to pay interest on.

Typically? And what are the rates in either case?

Vague example is vague.

In other words, QE leaves banks with both a new IOU
from the central bank but also a new, equally sized IOU
to consumers (in this case, the pension fund), and the
interest rates on both of these depend on Bank Rate.

But you manipulate your own rates.

Why the extra reserves are not multiplied up into new
loans and broad money

As discussed earlier, the transmission mechanism of QE relies
on the effects of the newly created broad — rather than base
— money. The start of that transmission is the creation of 

bank deposits on the asset holder’s balance sheet in the place
of government debt (Figure 3, first row). Importantly, the
reserves created in the banking sector (Figure 3, third row) do
not play a central role.

lol

This is because, as explained earlier,
banks cannot directly lend out reserves.

Useless regulated hogwash.

Reserves are an IOU from the central bank to commercial banks.

So IF the “commercial banks” fail, the “central” banks have no actual reserves.

Nada. Nil. Zippo. Nothing?

Am I reading this right?

And IF the commercial banks fail, tell me the price of rope.

Those banks can use them to make payments to each other, but they cannot
‘lend’ them on to consumers in the economy, who do not hold
reserves accounts.

We could resolve this legal technicality. Why should a small select group of Bankers get a special type of account?

Since common folk aren’t allowed to start-up banks any more, too much red tape.

When banks make additional loans they are matched by extra deposits — the amount of reserves does not change.

But deposits are debt.

double neg equals good

I am guessing the reserve doesn’t change because it doesn’t magically pop into existence at any point.

Like bread in a Communist country.

Moreover, the new reserves are not mechanically multiplied
up into new loans and new deposits as predicted by the money
multiplier theory. QE boosts broad money without directly
leading to, or requiring, an increase in lending. While the first
leg of the money multiplier theory does hold during QE — the
monetary stance mechanically determines the quantity of
reserves — the newly created reserves do not, by themselves,
meaningfully change the incentives for the banks to create
new broad money by lending. It is possible that QE might
indirectly affect the incentives facing banks to make new
loans, for example by reducing their funding costs, or by
increasing the quantity of credit by boosting activity.(1) But
equally, QE could lead to companies repaying bank credit, if
they were to issue more bonds or equity and use those funds

to repay bank loans. On balance, it is therefore possible for
QE to increase or to reduce the amount of bank lending in the
economy. However these channels were not expected to be
key parts of its transmission: instead, QE works by
circumventing the banking sector, aiming to increase private
sector spending directly.(2)

Well. I feel safe.

They can hoard it all like dwarf gold but let’s keep letting them because….?

Appeal to tradition?

And funding cronies might make a system for the public worse… but its “aim” is here “for your own good” because you need an “intermediary” in your “transaction” as a People, because, remember, the Bank of ENGLAND, is NOT English, it is not nationalised, it is a private entity owned by very much non-English people. Would they try to ruin us?

On what grounds do they rule us and dictate what we must do with our human right, the fruit to our own labour?

These are the questions.

Along with: why do the BOE and the “commercial banks” point the finger at one another for who is ultimately responsible for ‘money creation’ in this nation? Who deserves the credit/blame? Can we get a list of names?

Blue box is also interesting but here’s just the first line: “One of the Bank of England’s primary objectives is to ensure
monetary stability by keeping inflation on track to meet the Government’s 2% target. ”

Can we elect a Government that makes it -2%? We can haz.

We have Death by a thousand QEs. There’s also the QE (free debt with purchasing power to the out-group) of welfare and other gibs. We’ve been bailing out the bankers since the 18th century. …With the bank itself. The biggest recipients of welfare are the financiers. 

Blood money of 2% every year from every citizen. On what grounds? And who is We?

“We” were invaded centuries ago. Cromwell let them back in. You don’t hear about much social unrest or moral decay before that point. Funny that.

Socialist spending is state-level QE. Since this devalues the currency by increasing “demand” for the same finite supply of goods. The illusion of abundance prior to every shortage.

I’m sure we’ll be gravy, mate. Become a minimalist, Amazon Prime will always be there to wipe your arse.

I’m just being hysterical, and stupid,, and paranoid. There is no proof whatsoever for any of these opinions and I shall just toddle on back to my kitchen now because anti-white anti-housewife sentiment is only okay when white men are doing it.

That’s the way to be great.

We fought wars so white men could slander white women in the name of national loyalty.

Sorry for inconveniencing your porn abuse schedule with my feminine rambling.

Conclusion
This article has discussed how money is created in the modern
economy. Most of the money in circulation is created, not by
the printing presses of the Bank of England, but by the
commercial banks themselves: banks create money whenever
they lend to someone in the economy or buy an asset from
consumers. And in contrast to descriptions found in some
textbooks, the Bank of England does not directly control the
quantity of either base or broad money. The Bank of England
is nevertheless still able to influence the amount of money in
the economy. It does so in normal times by setting monetary
policy

for “consumer confidence”

through the interest rate that it pays on reserves held
by commercial banks with the Bank of England. More
recently, though, with Bank Rate constrained by the effective
lower bound, the Bank of England’s asset purchase programme
has sought to raise the quantity of broad money in circulation.
This in turn affects the prices and quantities of a range of
assets in the economy, including money.

You trolls have a nice day, wherever you are.

Buy bitcoin.

Link: SJW virtue signalling and hidden classism

It’s barely hidden.

http://www.isegoria.net/2017/07/confronted-with-sandwiches-named-padrino-and-pomodoro/

“American upper-middle-class culture (where the opportunities are) is now laced with cultural signifiers that are completely illegible unless you happen to have grown up in this class. They play on the normal human fear of humiliation and exclusion. Their chief message is, “You are not welcome here.”

Freudian signifiers, btw.

Those are Freud.

Cultural Marxism is used by the middle class whites to keep the working class oppressed – by creating new oppressed classes that crowd them out for rentseeking.

Irish comic character cast as mixed mystery meat

https://mic.com/articles/152038/zendaya-is-mary-jane-in-spider-man-homecoming-so-of-course-there-s-racist-backlash

Parents

Mixing nixes the white recessive genes. This isn’t political, it’s Mendel.
If you do not agree, you literally need to pick up a school book because you are inferior in intellect to a child.

Detour for butthurt:

aintevenmad

Behold, an Egyptian! And he’s one of the swarthier looking ones!

At best, they’re tan. And the ancient ones were paler because the Muslims hadn’t invaded yet and raped the women as slaves. #history #educateyourself

Fuck Afrocentrists claiming the white people stole from them for once! [FBI data, suck it]
We have genetic proof from mummies, documentation from the time and other cultures and artwork showing the elite (at least) were, in fact, pale. As in, white. This is conclusive, definitive and anyone arguing differently is a rent-seeker on white achievement. Cleopatra was Ptolemaic dynasty, a Greek-racial line (fun facts: the Greeks used to be blond closer to the founding of their Empire, Helen of Troy was blonde, but as they mixed and became swarthier, the Empire fell; I’m sure that’s a coincidence and nothing to do with Calhoun). She insisted on using Greek in documents in tandem and preferentially. The Rosetta Stone is no coincidence, and they used many languages because the equivalent of newspapers were leaving out stone tablets with the official record on them.

blog.oup.com/2010/12/cleopatra-2/

Apparently speaking Afrikaans would make me suddenly Black? Does that mean white African settlers aren’t colonialist oppressors now? #unintendedconsequences

To sum up: it is quite possible that Cleopatra was pure Macedonian Greek. But it is probable that she had some Egyptian blood, although the amount is uncertain. Certainly it was no more than half, and probably less. The best evidence is that she was three-quarters Macedonian Greek and one-quarter Egyptian. There is no room for anything else, certainly not for any black African blood. 

But sure, these people are the ones telling us race doesn’t matter. Of course, all their actions show this.

cute wink

Back to the SJW corporate entryism problem murdering anything cool by making the bandwagon a campaign slogan when the entire purpose of comic book films is ESCAPISM from that EXACT bullshit…

(these people are Grundies, they are the anti-matter of cool)
(as in, all this casting tumblrism nonsense may be making comic films unbearable for regular people)

I love the logic of these people, the way they claim if this one actor doesn’t get this one role in this one appearance-based industry they chose to work in, then every example of that race is doomed to failure like the Borg, but with black people. Is that not racist to assume, that they need Blackwashing Welfare? Why can’t black people write more books and make those books into films? Would they not be as good/popular? Why play the Cup and Ball game with actors? (Although seeing the signalling SWPL out of their multi-million dollar jobs is a 24K gold lining to this, finally they see consequences, hence intersectionality, really Black Power Feminism, oddly hasn’t caught on).

We all know the Spiderman reboot has been a shit-show but to fuck up the romantic lead as well? The character is bland, she does nothing but look ginger. That is her purpose, look reddish and pout. They know the performance but assume this franchise is a shoo-in for purchasing toys. Seriously, check the BO figures and compare to the Irish-complexioned counterpart once these become available.

This girl isn’t even black, the worst part is they keep calling her black when she clearly isn’t. She’s mixed, an entire other group, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills the way they abuse the One-Drop Rule when it suits them, labelling anyone slightly black as Black (Obama, basically all the part-black scientists by descent), but using it yourself for scientific purposes (e.g. heart medicine, not poisoning them) is supposedly bad?

Heads will roll...

Yes, these two could be twins…

See, first they replace the white people in Hollywood because the propaganda didn’t go far enough in the past 50 years (dating site data), then when white people see their immigrant replacements in the street (and outnumbering them, plus super-fertility) their brains don’t flag it up, accepting it as normal. That’s the plan. They did the same with the false Fun Gay stereotype, but ignore the facts on suicide, drug use and domestic abuse, they cracked a joke in this show. Humour creates sympathy without actually doing anything, and oh look, the Funny Black Sidekick stereotype appears! Wow, such coincidences.

Political correctness lies to create change, thusly Progressivism is brittle and already crumbling, with nothing Patriarchal left to burn as a distraction. Regular people are noticing now and disoriented.

There’s nothing racist about noticing that there’s no such thing as a black girl without black hair, they are literally defined by their hair colour more than their skin, the defining character trait is red. This is like when they hired the talentless hack black girl to play Lady Guinevere, whose entire thing was being white in the legends of a white country that had a real Saxon king called Arthur in a white continent and then claimed it was cos she was ‘best for the part’ (then again with ANOTHER black/mix playing literally The White Queen) and everything was ‘mythical/fictional’ (so why not ‘hire’ a sock on a stick? logic) bull-SHIT.

Let us not forget the worst example in recent history.

The sequel is not canon, QED.

If they can get you to say up is down once, their politics of delusion have got you for life. We are not blind and people are not putting up with this pretension, that’s what it is, a pretense. If you enter a looks-based industry, you choose to be judged on your looks. If race doesn’t matter, this shouldn’t happen. Yet we even see it with models despite their casting also being chosen based on clothes revenue (because that’s their job, not to stand there, but sell) as an actress’ job is to sell the character they are based on.

Social justice gives people a chance who don’t deserve a chance, on the grounds that other people get chances. It’s cultural welfarism and the groups involved should reject it on principle. If they believed they had merit to compete fairly. You have a toy, they must get a toy. You get to play Princesses (European royalty), they must get a Black Princess because fuck logic even when it’s set in a non-monarchical society. Selling toys is one thing and I noticed Emma Watson didn’t insist Belle be played by a Black girl, but perverting historical record is fascist, next they’ll be deleting people from photos instead of cropping and painting over the skin of portraits in galleries.

Feminists should be pissed because this is seen as a half-measure from casting a black MAN, as if the women were inferior in import and expendable.

It’s like when we all pretended Rihanna looked good blonde to be polite instead of admitting she looked fake like a stripper. It’s jarring to see a black girl (well, brown) Act White. It’s like a Wigger but in reverse, just wrong. Where’s the cultural appropriation people for white people’s hair colour? Oh, magically they cease to give a shit, like the rest of us.

This is oddly racist against the Irish, more of whom were slaves than black people, period. [read a book, seriously]

I’m tagging this as anti-white because the Irish have all the recessive traits including distinctive red freckles (MJ = Irish) often with green/blue eyes, genetics win this round. This Z-list girl looks the opposite of MJ, total miscast on purpose because they expect character fans will always show up anyway out of loyalty (but reason to execs this will attract the black girl demo, that hate SFF unless a black girl is cast, so …they hate SFF full stop, it’s all Mary Sue-ing) – not so in reality for both $$$ claims, not with so many properties on the market at once, hiring some social media bint is demeaning to us all just put in a fucking Kardashian you PC-peddling scum ruining ART.

Expresses my feelings on this issue

inb4: I would support a Kardashian hired in the role because at least it would be entertaining.

Footnotes:

margaretgeorge.com/adventures-in-research/2010/10/entering-the-world-of-helen-of-troy/

Up until the last couple of centuries, ‘black’ as a descriptor of women referred to HAIR. It was presumed by skin that all women were white, and where black, the particular geography was mentioned instead. Helen’s hair was not mentioned but her fair skin was, and even if brown as a half-way measure, women frequently dyed it. Fairness of flesh was picked up on as a class cue, implying fairness of eyes and hair, which crowds rarely saw so it didn’t matter much.

biographyonline.net/women/cleopatra.html

She was a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, a family of Greek origin that ruled Egypt after Alexander the Great’s death during the Hellenistic period. The Ptolemies, throughout their dynasty, spoke Greek and refused to speak Egyptian, which is the reason that Greek as well as Egyptian languages were used on official court documents such as the Rosetta Stone. By contrast, Cleopatra did learn to speak Egyptian and represented herself as the reincarnation of an Egyptian goddess, Isis.

I know I’ll still get some “it doesn’t matter”s and “you’re racist for discussing race” people trying to write ALL this proof off.

  1. If it doesn’t matter, don’t alter the casting.
  2. It’s a conversation on pop culture, when you bring up race, it is on the table for everyone to discuss EQUALLY because this isn’t a Race Powertrip Studies class where you can preach solo and silence groups you hate, oppressively.

Also, we’re now so far into counter-signalling that trannies are turning anti-LGBT to call trannies ‘trannies’ and degenerates. What a time to be alive. You’re still a dude in a dress Blaire, but it’s been fun. It’s like when Roosh tried to be a white supremacist for edge points or that honest Holocaust documentary Jew was called anti-Semitic.

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got

Mill’s Liberty and do you have a right to ruin my life, indirectly?

I doubt those quibbling the scholar epithet (tongue-in-cheek, as you can plainly see) will claim to have noticed posts like this…

omg really wtf go away no audrey

I was reading around to a trounce a feminist at a cocktail party and this happens to be bizarrely applicable 150 years hence. I don’t usually read philosophy, most of being modernist trash. This selection is worth reading.

http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html

each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights;”

Such as the right to have a non-cheating spouse.
There is more respect for a girlfriend/boyfriend arrangement than a marriage nowadays.

“and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation. These conditions society is justified in enforcing at all costs to those who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do. The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going the length of violating any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by opinion, though not by law.”

Violating the spirit, not the rule. Common with narcissists. Technically, I did nothing wrong, they’ll say, because I did nothing illegal.
Good people will disapprove of bad people and this has never, nor shall ever, make us bad in turn. To be discriminating is a compliment. Judgement is a core component of thought.

“As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences.”

Natural consequences are not oppression – common sense.
The problem being that modern man doesn’t stand the consequences. Deadbeat dads, rapists getting off on technicalities, being rude but toeing the line to antisocial, these things used to be dealt with, as they should. By allowing them to continue, we encourage others implicitly and the problems get worse. For example, without rap culture, men and women would be far less rude to one another in this century. Rappers talk about respect because they can’t get it. The entitlement mindset originates from these people, who think they can treat everyone like dirt because reputation is a white thing. Cat-calling is a black thing. Wolf-whistling isn’t insulting, it’s like applause. Anyone being rude to women in the street is acting black, whether they admit it or not.

I do not mean that the feelings with which a person is regarded by others, ought not to be in any way affected by his self-regarding qualities or deficiencies. This is neither possible nor desirable. If he is eminent in any of the qualities which conduce to his own good, he is, so far, a proper object of admiration. He is so much the nearer to the ideal perfection of human nature. If he is grossly deficient in those qualities, a sentiment the opposite of admiration will follow. There is a degree of folly, and a degree of what may be called (though the phrase is not unobjectionable) lowness or depravation of taste, which, though it cannot justify doing harm to the person who manifests it, renders him necessarily and properly a subject of distaste, or, in extreme cases, even of contempt: a person could not have the opposite qualities in due strength without entertaining these feelings.”

The manosphere’s PR problem that killed it.
PUA too.
Why’s it always the same people? They are deficient, pick a trait.
Degenerates and deviants are deficient people.

“Though doing no wrong to any one, a person may so act as to compel us to judge him, and feel to him, as a fool, or as a being of an inferior order: and since this judgment and feeling are a fact which he would prefer to avoid, it is doing him a service to warn him of it beforehand, as of any other disagreeable consequence to which he exposes himself.”

IRL detour since you seem to like the gossip. It was aimed at me so it’s legit to bring up. Skip ahead to the next quote if you like, but this childish BS is the reason I don’t defend them from misogyny claims anymore.
Their first tactic upon being warned (so they can’t play naive later) is to project. Not SJW but bird brains nonetheless, they always project. They keep calling me a man, hilariously, because of the quality content I produce (they believe no woman can ever be smarter than them, screw statistics), and their White Knight instincts would kick in otherwise, and …what was it? The most shared one was the baseless caricature of a fat ugly woman in her 30s living in Moscow because I praised Putin once, can you make a random guess what the person levying it looked like?

evil smirk cheeky cavill

Not this, that’s for fucking sure.

Single. 30s. Fat. Ugly. Does nothing but sit behind a keyboard and bleat about the flaws in others. Instead of hiding from it like he would and expected, I trumpeted it, because it isn’t true. It serves to make the speaker look like a liar. I love how ugly people call beautiful people ugly (not that he’d know for certain but perhaps he sensed from my prose). We laugh it off, it’s confusing. You wouldn’t dare look in our direction in public and we both know it. Looks are a curse, a distraction from being taken seriously on any topic. We also have to put up with these losers negging us on the reg. It never works. Ever. Negging is an implicit admission that 1. they think we’re superior and 2. they’re insecure just by looking at us. Why would that work? I’ve never seen a proof. I think they’re ruining one another’s chances to scupper the competition because a lot of them turn into super-sweet charades of themselves around us. Ignore the data that beautiful people have higher IQs, we expect it. We’ve been accustomed to bitchy rumours since childhood (oh a random guy online says I’m stupid, I guess the psychometrics must’ve been wrong, puh-lease).
It isn’t true so it doesn’t hurt. They fail to understand this because the insults lobbed at them are generally entirely accurate, it’s the veracity that stings. Names don’t hurt, unless it’s descriptive, unless it hits home. They so spoiled by social media they think they can speak to people however they like (including cultural betters like upper class Europeans, Know your place, plebians) without being matched back, as if freedom of speech singularly applies to those Starting It. Their assumptions are wrong. Polite is not nice. We treat as we find. A doormat is disrespected by 3rd parties for weakness, women especially must verbally defend themselves moreso than men because we cannot do so physically. They understand none of this, however painstakingly you explain.

ItjOKBM

Another kept trying to call me rude because he randomly tried to start a BDSM roleplay/sexting session around how he’d spank me. My relatives would kill him for that, or at least beat him to a bloody pulp, but over the internet he figured he was safe from any reproach or call-out. I’m a lady, and he knew that, and knew I’d never be comfortable with those sort of things. Ever. Even from a husband I’d suspect there’s something wrong with them, repressed rage. Clinically disturbed people enjoy the sadistic discomfort of others and their social harm often presents as insidious boundary-pushing like this. Without permission, any of this, I want to assert, I randomly get pages of explicit material ordering me to do various things, that I would happily report to the police as harassment, when it was a clear fetish he was getting off on and this was about the third or fourth time he’d mentioned it. Previously, I’d made it clear I didn’t care for those topics, personal ones, and assumed it had registered after an apology. I ignored the attempt and took the High Road, the highest possible road although I came to regret it, hoping it was a drunken mistake but knowing better, and we haven’t spoken since, good riddance to bad rubbish. I didn’t reply, you can’t get more feminine than that. You’d think these people would stop trying to cause social harm at this point. Didn’t stop him from setting his friends on me like a 13yo schoolgirl and they’re persisting in randomly trying to start drama up again, to try and use my reaction against me (while decrying it when Anita does it). Yeah, I’m the problem here, right? You keep coming back to my material, I remind comments who emptily complain on their behalf. I’d initially met both parties with sweetness and sympathy (my regular politesse) I soon found they didn’t deserve, so I withdrew it quietly, and this American-spat nonsense is their way of trying to get my attention again and in a twisted way, back on speaking terms. It won’t work because I’m more intelligent, yet that’s hardly saying anything. Once you’ve ruined your reputation as worthy of politeness, it’s gone, like virginity.
Back to liberty. That was too wordy, sorry.

It would be well, indeed, if this good office were much more freely rendered than the common notions of politeness at present permit, and if one person could honestly point out to another that he thinks him in fault, without being considered unmannerly or presuming.”

In Europe, you aren’t. Not among the old vanguard. New Money is easily offended. Their position is new and must be defended by offense. The upper class, moneyed or by blood, are wonderfully un-PC, note the Queen’s recent comments on rudeness of the Chinese only this week. It’s in our culture to express the truth. Nice and nasty. Nasty truth is a public sport, see Blackadder.
To a woman on an official visit, Prince Philip said “I would get arrested if I unzipped that dress!”.
Real genuine English people are like this. We don’t pull punches.
SWPL and other Americans think we should be push-overs because they believe Hollywood and they’re sanctimonious tosspots i.e. I heard “You have a Queen, you should be polite!” from a tourist who grabbed me.

Where do you get this? Americans don’t get to use the word rude to us, okay? Odds are you infringed on a dozen rules of etiquette before we said something, you deserve it. Take ya medicine.
You guys have the Puritanical speech culture, not us. Our monarch is famous for swearing in private. Bess is brutal.
We dragged Cromwell’s corpse through a street to gamble, swear like sailors and celebrate Christmas.

“We have a right, also, in various ways, to act upon our unfavourable opinion of any one, not to the oppression of his individuality, but in the exercise of ours. We are not bound, for example, to seek his society; we have a right to avoid it (though not to parade the avoidance), for we have a right to choose the society most acceptable to us. We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates.”

One rotten apple spoils the barrel.

“We may give others a preference over him in optional good offices, except those which tend to his improvement. In these various modes a person may suffer very severe penalties at the hands of others, for faults which directly concern only himself; but he suffers these penalties only in so far as they are the natural, and, as it were, the spontaneous consequences of the faults themselves, not because they are purposely inflicted on him for the sake of punishment. A person who shows rashness, obstinacy, self-conceit—who cannot live within moderate means—who cannot restrain himself from hurtful indulgences—who pursues animal pleasures at the expense of those of feeling and intellect—must expect to be lowered in the opinion of others, and to have a less share of their favourable sentiments; but of this he has no right to complain, unless he has merited their favour by special excellence in his social relations, and has thus established a title to their good offices, which is not affected by his demerits towards himself.”

One of my favourite parts. “He has no right to complain.” The proof of wrong is in the mirror.
They won’t respect themselves, they shouldn’t expect respect. This simple and the way people are raised with common sense.
People who self-abuse (food, sex, rest, things required for life taken to extremes) or are self-destructive in behaviour get no sympathy from the silent majority. First time, certainly, fifteenth? Get out of here. They always say the same thing, that we’re deliberately hurting them and making it worse. No, we’re cutting off the enabling teat, the milk of human kindness. Tough love.

Remember when oppression was used in the correct context? Ostracism and shame work because they crave popularity, being feeble individually.

Encroachment on their rights; infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights; falsehood or duplicity in dealing with them; unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them; even selfish abstinence from defending them against injury—these are fit objects of moral reprobation, and, in grave cases, of moral retribution and punishment.

And not only these acts, but the dispositions which lead to them, are properly immoral, and fit subjects of disapprobation which may rise to abhorrence.

A reputation isn’t unjust if your actions earned it.
He did X, is not a slight, it’s a fact.
Therefore he is Y type of person, has some grounds to it.
Z, we must avoid his rot, may be fair too, if a danger is presented and the warnings are clear.
People have a right to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Cruelty of disposition; malice and ill-nature; that most anti-social and odious of all passions, envy; dissimulation and insincerity, irascibility on insufficient cause, and resentment disproportioned to the provocation; the love of domineering over others; the desire to engross more than one’s share of advantages; the pride which derives gratification from the abasement of others; the egotism which thinks self and its concerns more important than everything else, and decides all doubtful questions in its own favour;—these are moral vices, and constitute a bad and odious moral character:”

Real deviants. Who harm their social group.
Devaluation is something they get off on, little known fact.
It’s like a list of flaws commonly found in adjacent parts of the internet. The anger outs them. Like their SJW enemies, they cannot take a joke. The narcissism of small differences.

If he displeases us, we may express our distaste, and we may stand aloof from a person as well as from a thing that displeases us; but we shall not therefore feel called on to make his life uncomfortable. We shall reflect that he already bears, or will bear, the whole penalty of his error; if he spoils his life by mismanagement, we shall not, for that reason, desire to spoil it still further: instead of wishing to punish him, we shall rather endeavour to alleviate his punishment, by showing him how he may avoid or cure the evils his conduct tends to bring upon him.

This only works after the first time, or first few times, to be liberal. If they ignored the proscriptions passed down in childhood, why would they listen as a selfish, closed-minded adult? Better to mock them and how they deserved it, for correction. Gentle but effective.
Even excessively liberal judges give stiffer sentences to repeat offenders.

He may be to us an object of pity, perhaps of dislike, but not of anger or resentment; we shall not treat him like an enemy of society: the worst we shall think ourselves justified in doing is leaving him to himself, if we do not interfere benevolently by showing interest or concern for him. It is far otherwise if he has infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow-creatures, individually or collectively. The evil consequences of his acts do not then fall on himself, but on others; and society, as the protector of all its members, must retaliate on him; must inflict pain on him for the express purpose of punishment, and must take care that it be sufficiently severe.”

No clemency.

Degeneracy is a character defect. A core fissure of flaws. It cannot be scrubbed out, they’ll keep sucking the marrow from the good until the leech is detached from its host, and this leaves nothing of aid for the other good people. As we see in compassion fatigue, goodness, compassion and charity are a finite resource. They are natural nomads because nobody will put up with them, frequently abandoned by their family, most of their friends, or they have a psychopath’s rotation that last about two years because they too, have it up to here. If only people came with dust covers and reviews. If evidenced, Peeple would’ve been a fine idea. It would reintroduce the social considerations of a high trust society where word gets round.

“The distinction here pointed out between the part of a person’s life which concerns only himself, and that which concerns others, many persons will refuse to admit. How (it may be asked) can any part of the conduct of a member of society be a matter of indifference to the other members? No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connexions, and often far beyond them. If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it, and usually diminishes, by a greater or less amount, the general resources of the community. If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended on him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow-creatures generally; perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent, hardly any offence that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good.

Finally, if by his vices or follies a person does no direct harm to others, he is nevertheless (it may be said) injurious by his example; and ought to be compelled to control himself, for the sake of those whom the sight or knowledge of his conduct might corrupt or mislead. And even (it will be added) if the consequences of misconduct could be confined to the vicious or thoughtless individual, ought society to abandon to their own guidance those who are manifestly unfit for it? If protection against themselves is confessedly due to children and persons under age, is not society equally bound to afford it to persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government?

Act like a child, claim paucity of agency or naivety, have the restriction in freedoms OF a child.

“I fully admit that the mischief which a person does to himself may seriously affect, both through their sympathies and their interests, those nearly connected with him, and in a minor degree, society at large. When, by conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person or persons, the case is taken out of the self-regarding class, and becomes amenable to moral disapprobation in the proper sense of the term. If, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them, he is deservedly reprobated, and might be justly punished; but it is for the breach of duty to his family or creditors, not for the extravagance.”

Don’t tell the MGTOW/MRA that fathers are responsible for their families too. In fact, as men, the gender roles posits more responsibility than women could ever require.
You see why I go on about fake moral authority? If you can’t mind your own business, your hypocritical advice is unwarranted and unwelcome. You are fit to have an opinion but not to dispense it. Would you take diet advice from the obese? Why take advice on morality from a pervert, one who perverts the rules of decency – and for fun?
These people dispense pretty words on doing what you like without attention to duty. In a society, you have duties. Deal with it.

“In like manner, when a person disables himself, by conduct purely self-regarding, from the performance of some definite duty incumbent on him to the public, he is guilty of a social offence.”

Few vices are entirely private.
You used to be able to fine cheating spouses and their lovers. You want the cream? Pay for the pussy. They expect to have the benefits of the husband (cooking, cleaning, rutting) without the duties, see a pattern in the entitlement?
The problem with society isn’t stupid people. It’s that we, the rest of us have to live with them and make allowances for them like children, then we are expected to show sympathy to hedons. Ancient hedons were more like modern stoics actually, they had clear limits and rarely indulged, except when they did, they weren’t guilty about it. That’s the reason. Not that vice or indulgence is innately a good. The ancients, however tawdry their society, never went to this extreme of dopamine-drowned stupidity.

If society lets any considerable number of its members grow up mere children, incapable of being acted on by rational consideration of distant motives, society has itself to blame for the consequences. Armed not only with all the powers of education, but with the ascendancy which the authority of a received opinion always exercises over the minds who are least fitted to judge for themselves; and aided by the natural penaltieswhich cannot be prevented from falling on those who incur the distaste or the contempt of those who know them; let not society pretend that it needs, besides all this, the power to issue commands and enforce obedience in the personal concerns of individuals,”

Nanny State.

“in which, on all principles of justice and policy, the decision ought to rest with those who are to abide the consequences. Nor is there anything which tends more to discredit and frustrate the better means of influencing conduct, than a resort to the worse. If there be among those whom it is attempted to coerce into prudence or temperance, any of the material of which vigorous and independent characters are made, they will infallibly rebel against the yoke. No such person will ever feel that others have a right to control him in his concerns, such as they have to prevent him from injuring them in theirs; and it easily comes to be considered a mark of spirit and courage to fly in the face of such usurped authority,”

Too many edgy people using insults without a place.
The Right isn’t exempt from false pride.

“and do with ostentation the exact opposite of what it enjoins; as in the fashion of grossness which succeeded, in the time of Charles II, to the fanatical moral intolerance of the Puritans.”

Reverse psychology.
Stupid people do it constantly, thinking they’re so clever.
They want me to be good, so I’ll be bad, I’ll show them being bad is good! They can’t trick me into doing what’s bad for my self-interest!

High time preference personified.

We have a saying you Yanks might like.

“Leave ’em to it.”
It means we let them go and get themselves into trouble, but we won’t rescue them.
We won’t lift a finger. We absolve ourselves of responsibility for them.
I think one of our cultural misfires is self-help. It makes people determined to misbehave. You can’t self-help unless you’re a therapist.

“With respect to what is said of the necessity of protecting society from the bad example set to others by the vicious or the self-indulgent; it is true that bad example may have a pernicious effect, especially the example of doing wrong to others with impunity to the wrong-doer. But we are now speaking of conduct which, while it does no wrong to others, is supposed to do great harm to the agent himself: and I do not see how those who believe this, can think otherwise than that the example, on the whole, must be more salutary than hurtful, since, if it displays the misconduct, it displays also the painful or degrading consequences which, if the conduct is justly censured, must be supposed to be in all or most cases attendant on it.

They out themselves, as with liars who make things up about their imagined enemies.
If you’re in the right, you won’t need to lie.

These people used to keep it to the underground. It was never out, in the open and public. They could never brag and the media derided them (they love salacious gossip like the Americans now). Those who aren’t ashamed of past misconduct are as bad as the Kardashians, they twist it into a point of pride. Again.

facepalm leslie howard

As if they’re whiter than white, more good than the people who’ve been good this whole time.

“There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings…But there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it.”

“These teach that things are right because they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us to search in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding on ourselves and on all others.”

Ironically, those ‘philosophers’ slag off women for being emotional, irrational and having no ability to argue.
Projection Parade. The lust lies.
Here’s the SJW pseudologic:

“The Secretary, however, says, “I claim, as a citizen, a right to legislate whenever my social rights are invaded by the social act of another.””
“So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatever, except perhaps to that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for, the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes any one’s lips, it invades all the “social rights” attributed to me by the Alliance. The doctrine ascribes to all mankind a vested interest in each other’s moral, intellectual, and even physical perfection, to be defined by each claimant according to his own standard.”

Nope, you are 100% fully responsible adult. Responsible for oneself. Nobody else is more responsible for you, than you.

For those who signal all they like about degeneracy;

“It also appears so to me, but I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilized.”

Sorry America.

“So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end to because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part or concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one,) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people.

If civilization has got the better of barbarism when barbarism had the world to itself, it is too much to profess to be afraid lest barbarism, after having been fairly got under, should revive and conquer civilization.

A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy, must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it.

If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians.”

The Black Pill.

If you admire or fear your inferiors, they win.

Elsewhere he wrote about suppression of opinion, and noted there are three beliefs: false, half-true and entirely true.

“First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.”

Ironically, I got that one from wikipedia.
Similar text wall, same chapter as top, here: http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/four.html

Choices connotes consequence.
If you consent to a choice, you consent to the risk of bad consequence, and you must accept it as gladly as you would have done the good, to take your lumps because welcome to adulthood, everyone does.
R-types have one thing in common. They want to be celebrated for existing.
Even their opinions, in their grandiose mind, are worth a living. Hang market demand.
However, a logician would correctly assert that one should place like opinions in a book and charge for that instead. The readers would get a higher quality for a cheaper price, a physical product, the author more money, yet the frauds on places like Youtube never do this because people wouldn’t read their books. Why? People want their free opinion to laugh at them. You don’t pay the village idiot to be a clown because he isn’t trying, it isn’t work for him.

I sourced these third party quotes.

millnaturalconsequences millnaturalconsequences2

As well as this, a little later is the jape.

Spencer’s hedonism committed him to the view that life is worthless in the absence of pleasure or happiness.” pp.104 Hayek on Liberty, Third Ed.
I have never seen a better definition of hedonism or the r-mindset. Kudos, Sir.

They want freedom – from consequences.

laughing lol haha liar liar

That’s a good one.

Video: Europe (Whites) finally learning to say No after Cologne

Cologne seems to be the flashpoint for the EU’s naive populace that the MSM has been lying to them.

The screeching is palpable. What do you mean, we don’t have a right to use your land and its resources (women)?

Left: This isn’t supposed to happen??? We brainwashed them from birth! Racist! Wait, it isn’t working! Bigot! No, not that one either! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Oh phew, that still works. It’s OK guys we’re still subverting and destroying Western Civ! Good talk! Jazz hands!

Someone really needs to tell Stefan about Magic Dirt.

It’s based on the Sociologist’s Fallacy that crossing a border will induce magical whole body changes and drag a Third Worlder into the Very Model of a First World NW Europe Gentleman, genetics and all.

Wait until rations come in, won’t that be fun? Grow a Victory garden against who?

This German man needs to grow some balls. He is practically begging Stefan to give him permission to act. Many Europeans are in this tricky halfway position. They’re gathering information, unsure how to act on it.

Waiting for something.

Moving too early is as bad as moving too late.

My advice? Plan for your loved ones. That is it, you owe nothing to the people who betrayed you. Be brutal in who you include, who would die for you? Emergency fund, urgency plans if you need to flee. For the present, I’d normally say remain there, but with the new ‘shelter’ opening up, you might be targeted for your baby. However, you need that support network and so does baby. There is no exit, nowhere to escape. Move as one or fortify. Prepare.

You see little rebellions. First they say No to one sex tourist treating the cream of Europe like a brothel. And the dominoes fall. Point and shriek enough times and you’ll eventually land on a real threat.

“The Left has no facts. The Left has only verbal abuse.”

The Left has been hemorrhaging devotees as the EU blimp has trundled along, making curious noises. Nobody wants to be stuck at the end with the losers. Simply look at the consequences, they cannot be avoided any longer. There is no time.

“The Left have nothing, they can’t have reality, brain size, IQ,  biology, cultural history, inbreeding, genetics, and religious intolerance, theocracy, no separation of Church and State like all of the things that are gonna come in that are problematic.” Game recognized.

They’re hoping the Right dies fighting these guys while they are cowering playing Damsel and hide. “Let’s you and him fight.” Why, the Right ask? Why do I need to fight if I just stop him coming over here to my land?
They are manufacturing a Civil War because an Inter-European War has been a null option since all the brainwashing on WW2. They’ll come up with excuses to sit out, probably a new form of mental illness you can’t falsify. Once the currency goes kaput (sorry), these pampered little hipsters in their gated communities will need the protection of a scapegoat. Who better than literal rape culturalists?
These refugees may be the foot soldiers, but people are fingering the leaders, and they don’t like that.
Why should we fight for you, the Right ask?

They have no answer. Mumbling about we’re all human, we all bleed red.
Fine, the Right say, you go do it. Who is ‘we’, paleface? Where were you? Who are you, to order me? We are not kin. We are not ingroup. You said patriotism is evil, so you won’t desire its protections, right? “Rough men stand ready to do violence… for their own. They aren’t playing pawn to be moved around by propaganda anymore and it’s beautiful.
They wanted division based on politics, they got it. Loud and clear, signal received. In Europe, the elite have nothing to do with this, they’ll be fine. Always, they’ll pay their way into safety. This isn’t an issue about the rich. If you look at the UK media, it is overwhelmingly middle class. Who do they get a hate-on for? Marx’s pets, the poor.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/20733/how-media-became-painfully-middle-class
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/01/tv-industry-middle-class-endemol-shine-tim-hincks-diversity
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roifield-brown/uk-media_b_4733905.html

This is a class war, and the native poor are seeing it.
One factor they have in their favour: voting bloc.
Why else would the right wing be winning recently, if not for that crucial bastion of support, traditionally belonging to the Left? But the Left sold them out. They favoured the Outgroup. Oh this poor (outgroup), anyone but the evil white men! 
Those natural conservatives (who prize country and family above all else) are finally leaving the abusive relationship and voting with their feet. To the left, this is unprecedented. An end of Left/Right they call it, because people are’t fitting into their neat little boxes anymore (vote based on class). Oh, L/R exist still, but their definitions are outdated. That’s what you get for living in an Ivory Tower instead of the Real World. The left’s response, at our last election?

How dare these poor people be so selfish.

Seriously, that was the best they could come up with. The mind boggles.

Who made these people poor? They’re looking into it now. This was the first election the media tried to rig by controlling the information flow – and failed. Almost a year later, they have nothing, they refuse to admit trashing the economy (like Brown selling off all our gold for pittance) or screwing over the workers for foreign labour with immigration, despite unemployment/underemployment. Like SJWs (their leadership since Blair), they’ve doubled down. Did we vote in the immigrant Jewish rich bloke who never worked a real job in his life? No.

We’d rather have the posh, rich closeted gay pig-fucker. Dwell on this. It’s the Principle.
Look at the suffrage post and who voted in the Left for a long period (men) and this becomes apparent. The poor, white men are on strike from social justice warriors. Their wives too and this female vote finally turning up to the polls, angry enough, was the crucial deciding point (the ‘Mum vote’) in landing it for the Tories.

Did you see the pink Labour van? It was like Monty Python. The conversations over the kitchen table? Wow.

This is a trend. We are at Stop. Wait……

It carries on….

No. Not now. Never. Never again. I’m gonna give you to the count of three to get off my land before we rearrange your face into a Picasso. The police have been called and your trial date confirmed. The State will escort you to The Wall now. Secret Police: We’ll deport you to Hell personally. Who needs that much paperwork?

Watching it in real-time is like;

I guess we need to accept this has happened and it's going to get pushier

Knowing it’s going to get worse with the economy. But since I am white and belong here, also like;

Our elders are criticizing us because we see past their BS.

It’s a strange two-minds situation.
You want to limit damage but you wonder if that would just prolong the problem.
There is a beauty in the justice of sitting back and watching the Left’s high time preference destroy their ideology. They won’t get back in once this is over.