Now, from the blockbuster piece, The Court That Rules the World:
Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution. Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court’s authority because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves as “The Club” or “The Mafia.”
And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing — and its decisions so unpredictable — that some nations dare not risk a trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions, such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments of convicted criminals.
This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.
Driving this expansion are the lawyers themselves. They have devised new and creative ways to deploy ISDS, and in the process bill millions to both the businesses and the governments they represent. At posh locales around the globe, members of The Club meet to swap strategies and drum up potential clients, some of which are household names, such as ExxonMobil or Eli Lilly, but many more of which are much lower profile. In specialty publications, the lawyers suggest novel ways to use ISDS as leverage against governments. It’s a sort of sophisticated, international version of the plaintiff’s attorney TV ad or billboard: Has your business been harmed by an increase in mining royalties in Mali? Our experienced team of lawyers may be able to help.
In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation’s laws and “effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive, and judiciary.” ISDS arbitrators, he continued, “can meet literally anywhere in the world” and “sit in judgment” on a nation’s “sovereign acts.”
Some on the left are proposing the elimination of currency bills larger than $10. This may seem like an insignificant matter, but if adopted, the proposal would be a giant step in the direction of totalitarianism.
By forcing Americans to use an electronic means of payment, government would gain the power to monitor and manipulate every aspect of one's finances. Washington would know what you buy, where and when you buy it, where you travel and eat, and whom you associate with. Granting government this kind of power is madness unless you're one of the political elite. They seem to be lining up in favor of a cashless society.
In a recent article, "The Sinister Side of Cash," Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff argued the case for drastically reducing the supply of cash currency – eliminating all bills above $10 and thereby forcing consumers and businesses to rely on electronic exchange. Rogoff claims that his plan would reduce money-laundering and thereby reduce crime while at the same time exposing tax cheats who deal in cash payments.
As I see it, Rogoff's argument for a cashless society is nothing less than creepy. As Rogoff himself admits, eliminating the supply of cash would raise privacy issues since information about electronic transactions can easily be recorded and stored. Beyond that, the very "advantages" that Rogoff lists should be a matter of deep concern. Taken together, the potential for government abuse is practically unlimited.
Most importantly, there is the matter of privacy and the threat to our liberties posed by a cashless society. That's a topic that proponents of a cashless society are loath to examine. Maybe I have a legitimate reason for not wanting an electronic record of all of my transactions. Maybe my reason is not legit. It doesn't matter. I have the right to live my life free from government surveillance.
That right is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.] "Papers, and effects" includes currency – and government has no right to force an accounting of those "effects" by eliminating a practical means of cash transactions.
Make no mistake: government will always abuse the powers citizens cede to it. Government has already stepped vastly beyond its constitutional limits. The Obama administration has not even made a pretense of constitutionality for many of its executive actions. The elimination of cash currency would be another large step, along with repeal of the Second Amendment, in the direction of totalitarianism.
Looking every bit like an aged matron who flew the convent coop during the aftermath of Vatican II (all Catholic readers of a certain age know exactlywhat I mean), Ms. Soros looks a bit peaked, though still quite fetching in her charcoal gray pantsuit.
I know that most people refer to George Soros as "Mr. Soros," but far be it from me to pigeonhole a public figure's gender identity, especially
After all, Soros has contributed millions of dollars to undo the very scientific binary understanding of sex and gender. So one must at least consider the possibility that deep down inside, there is something unseen by the rest of us that drives the
man person – some set of unresolved sexual identity issues – and this is no doubt why, now that Soros is well beyond eighty years old, his herxyr/hir/pers/vis/eir outward appearance is likewise becoming increasingly sexually ambiguous.
"Soros" is a rare palindrome, just like 666. It also happens to be a feminine noun found in Greek New Testament manuscripts meaning "an open coffin" or "receptacle for keeping the bones of the dead." Interesting. Many would agree that this is curiously, queerly fitting and that it explains a lot. A whole lot.
The only other twentieth-century
man person who has had as much of an impact on our culture and politics is Saul Alinsky. While Alinsky died 44 years ago, he has proven more influential – some would say more dangerous – sincehis death. Perhaps this is his postmortem reward for having dedicated his landmark work, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer, aka Satan. Perhaps Alinsky has been afforded the opportunity to continue to have a hand in community organizing from beyond the grave? It's not unthinkable, but who really knows for sure how these things work?
This might also explain the unlikely durability of the candidacy of the unpopular Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of Alinksy's chief acolytes. And let's not forget: just as Damian Thorn had a huge multinational organization – Thorn Industries – behind his quest for the United States presidency, so too does Hillary Clinton have the Clinton Foundation and its Clinton Global Initiative. Sometimes truth is just as strange as fiction, and fiction can be an omen, a portent, a warning from the past of what is to come.
In a 1972, Playboy Magazine interview, Alinsky said: "[I]f there is an afterlife, and I have anything to say about it, I will unreservedly choose to go to hell[.] ... Hell would be heaven for me." That also explains a whole lot.
The links run deeper than anyone knows: Saul Alinsky, Hillary Clinton's lifelong hero, interviewed for Hugh Hefner's Playboy Magazine; Hefner enjoys wearing his PJs and bathrobe in public, as does Clinton.
Back to Soros:
Soros will soon leave behind a huge, beastly mark on our world via a massive scorched earth policy inflicted on civil society. But why? It's a head-scratcher. And the obliteration of gender is just one component among many in Soros's strategy.
What motivates a person to make this sort of vast anti-human quest one's life's goal? To purposefully leave a trail of societal destruction in the wake of one's life? It sure would be nice to know what has actually been driving Miss Sorosall these years.
An important election is coming up, and I’m not talking about the US presidential election. The upcoming referendum in Italy this fall will have a major macroeconomic impact on the world. But hardly anyone outside of Italy is paying much attention to it - yet.
I’ve been saying for some time in interviews around the country that the referendum in Italy could have even more of an impact than the Brexit vote did in the UK. And like the Brexit vote, it is rife with emotion and political turmoil, making the outcome too close to call.
The current prime minister, Matteo Renzi, has basically bet his career on this referendum, which would allow him to enact much-needed reforms. In fact, they’re the same reforms that I have written about in my letters over the past five years and that I talked about in my previous two books.
Italy has about as sclerotic a governmental process as any country in Europe. And that is saying something. There is no end to corruption and crony politics. Each faction wants to keep the status quo and keep its perks but wants everybody else to give theirs up. If you’re a voter in Italy, your frustration is understandable.
This vote in Italy needs to go on your economic radar screen. If the “no” vote wins, Renzi has promised to resign. This would throw Italy into a political crisis. Then there would be a real potential to elect parties that would call for a vote on whether to stay in the European Union. And at this point, it is not clear what the Italians would decide to do.
Know this: The European Monetary Union does not work very well, if at all, without Italy. A “no” vote would be the death knell of the euro.
Nick Andrews, who writes for my friends at Gavekal, gives an excellent summary of the situation in Italy. And, it is worth every bit of your attention.
Post a Comment