The Goal Is INFLATION
POSTED BY: out2theblack
UPDATED: Saturday, June 20, 2026 15:13
VIEWED: 3661
PAGE 2 of 4
Oops, I just reread and realized I got it wrong. It's "illiberal, populist parties stirring up fear of immigrants..."
I retract what I wrote regarding that point; it's an accurate statement after all. My bad.
However, also note that what you underlined says supposed elites "are blamed for", not that they are actually guilty of...popular perception, and as the author said, "The psychology behind the Tea Party in the United States and the anti-immigrant parties in Europe is similar, even if their policies vary."
That I agree with as well; the idiotic politispeak about "elites" is so ridiculous, especially given that many on the right went to the same universities as those they categorize as "elites", are just as rich and powerful, and only play to being "regular folk" to manipulate the public's perception.
In other words, thank you O2B, for posting the valid truth of the matter. You seem to have misunderstood the author's points, which is strange given he starts right out with "Whatever happened to the good Europeans, those nice folks in small northern countries who liked to think of themselves as the world champions of liberty and tolerance?" and "They talk about Western liberties, including freedom of speech, but Wilders wants to ban the Koran and the burqa, and a Danish member of parliament has called Islam “a plague upon Europe", as well as "the illiberal populist parties pledge their support without actually governing, thereby gaining power without responsibility".
The entire article DECRIES the swing to the right in Europe; is that what you were trying to point out?
He writes: "The influence of these slick new populists, waging their war on Islam, goes well beyond their countries’ borders. Nativism is on the rise all over the Western world, and Wilders, in particular, is a popular speaker at right-wing anti-Muslim gatherings in the US, Britain, and Germany" and "The idea of a Tea Party candidate becoming US president is alarming, to be sure, but European populists could only be part of coalition governments."
His suggestion is to include these so-called "populists", thus "They would then not only have to prove their competence, but also moderate their attitudes" because "That is why the Danish model is probably the worst solution, for it requires no governing ability from the populists. As long as Wilders and his European counterparts stay out of government, they have no incentive to temper their illiberal rhetoric and stop stoking up hostility towards ethnic and religious minorities."
His conclusion is that "people must be convinced that without controlled immigration – and not just asylum for refugees – Europeans will be worse off. With falling birthrates, immigrants are needed to maintain European prosperity. At the same time, Europe’s economies should be less enmeshed in protective regulations, so that immigrants can find work more easily", and warns that "Europe will not be safer under politicians who claim that we are at war with Islam. On the contrary, their influence will make life not only less civilized, but a great deal more dangerous."
Were you just picking and choosing a quote for your own purposes, did you misunderstand the article, or are you agreeing with the author's negativity toward the "illiberal" right wing gaining power? Doesn't seem to me as if you would agree with that, so I'm confused.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
...Oops, I just reread and realized I got it wrong. It's "illiberal, populist parties stirring up fear of immigrants..."
I retract what I wrote regarding that point; it's an accurate statement after all. My bad.
However, also note that what you underlined says supposed elites "are blamed for", not that they are actually guilty of...popular perception, and as the author said, "The psychology behind the Tea Party in the United States and the anti-immigrant parties in Europe is similar, even if their policies vary."
...In other words, thank you O2B, for posting the valid truth of the matter. You seem to have misunderstood the author's points, which is strange given he starts right out with "Whatever happened to the good Europeans, those nice folks in small northern countries who liked to think of themselves as the world champions of liberty and tolerance?" and "They talk about Western liberties, including freedom of speech, but Wilders wants to ban the Koran and the burqa, and a Danish member of parliament has called Islam “a plague upon Europe", as well as "the illiberal populist parties pledge their support without actually governing, thereby gaining power without responsibility".
The entire article DECRIES the swing to the right in Europe; is that what you were trying to point out?
He writes: "The influence of these slick new populists, waging their war on Islam, goes well beyond their countries’ borders. Nativism is on the rise all over the Western world, and Wilders, in particular, is a popular speaker at right-wing anti-Muslim gatherings in the US, Britain, and Germany" and "The idea of a Tea Party candidate becoming US president is alarming, to be sure, but European populists could only be part of coalition governments."
...His conclusion is that "people must be convinced that without controlled immigration – and not just asylum for refugees – Europeans will be worse off. With falling birthrates, immigrants are needed to maintain European prosperity. At the same time, Europe’s economies should be less enmeshed in protective regulations, so that immigrants can find work more easily", and warns that "Europe will not be safer under politicians who claim that we are at war with Islam. On the contrary, their influence will make life not only less civilized, but a great deal more dangerous."
Were you just picking and choosing a quote for your own purposes, did you misunderstand the article, or are you agreeing with the author's negativity toward the "illiberal" right wing gaining power? Doesn't seem to me as if you would agree with that, so I'm confused.
Yes Niki , you are confused. Same as it ever was , so shall it ever be.
Sorry that you are so brain-blown that your partisan take on everything cripples your grey matter yet further.
I would really love to see your EEG right now...Probably looks like one of those famous Arizona electrical storms...You must be sitting in a corner ,
on the floor , just glitching and drooling.
Have someone bring you a Haldol , and shuffle off back to sleep , now , will ya ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Two years ago, most Americans knew little - to absolutely nothing - about the Federal Reserve, and that's the way the Fed liked it. However, times are changing.
For over 30 years, Congressman Ron Paul has attempted to open up the Federal Reserve and shed sunlight on its books. Never before had his bill made it out of committee, let alone received a roll call vote in both houses of Congress.
The Fed and its enablers are becoming frightened of citizen outrage.
The Federal Reserve is now a household name and most people now recognize its actions as a cause of the recession rather than a solution, and its actions are frequently scrutinized in the media. No longer can the Federal Reserve go about its daily business without people asking questions.
...80% of Americans are now in favor of a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
It wasn't easy for the Fed to water down the audit. It took everything they had, including hiring a powerful and well connected ex-Enron lobbyist and circulating letters signed by so-called “renowned economists” who made it sound as if we would bring on the apocalypse itself if the Fed were subjected to an audit.
Even the Obama administration was forced to come out in opposition to the audit to help the Fed save face.
Ben Bernanke was reconfirmed with the lowest vote of any Fed Chairman.
Senators and representatives are now on the record as being either for or against transparency at the Fed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sad statement on you. Another example of your ilk being unable to converse, and I guess thinking that whatever you write affects me in some way?
would really love to see your EEG right now...Probably looks like one of those famous Arizona electrical storms...You must be sitting in a corner , on the floor , just glitching and drooling.
No response to whether you thought this article backed up some anti-liberal stance of yours or whether you used it or misunderstood it. Or if you agree with it. Not important, but I'm pretty sure one of the former.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Judgmental much ?
Reflexive , reactive attack is your default mode.
Then you wonder why no one wants to play ?
You are right , this place has not ever been the same , at least since you showed up , shining your ass.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=45646
Sorry , I'm not into wrassling with a pig. Lipstick lesbo or any other kind...
I don't like getting dirty , and you would just get your perverse jollies from it...
Hey , aren't you supposed to be sucking mud and something slippery off some kind of critter about now ,
or was that just another of your cons ?
"The modern definition of 'Independent' is someone who throws rabid Libs & Cons into a pit to watch them kill each other." --'Chrisisall'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is why nobody listens to you, O2B - you cannot make your case without being offensive, and as such, no matter how many decent points you make, no one wants to hear it cause you're such a dick.
Hell, even *I* won't talk to you no more, cause of that.
You try bein civil, maybe you'll get somewhere, elsewise you're wasting your breath and getting roundfiled with PNs ever present rantings.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Judgmental much ?
Reflexive , reactive attack is your default mode.
Wow. Clueless much O2B? You accuse Niki of being judgmental and reactive? After she put a fair amount of effort into posting on topic, and you replied to her with this:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Yes Niki , you are confused. Same as it ever was , so shall it ever be.
Sorry that you are so brain-blown that your partisan take on everything cripples your grey matter yet further.
I would really love to see your EEG right now...Probably looks like one of those famous Arizona electrical storms...You must be sitting in a corner ,
on the floor , just glitching and drooling.
Have someone bring you a Haldol , and shuffle off back to sleep , now , will ya ?
You obviously don't see this O2B, but you get yourself no where with being so blatantly, obviously wrong. All you do is convince anyone reading these threads that not only are you a dick, but you're a hypocrite.
Niki doesn't deserve this treatment. And if this thread you started dies an early death, you have no one to blame but yourself. Who would want to reply to your post or take you at all seriously, after you've mistreated someone who wanted to do nothing but talk on topic?
(Sorry if this is just more of the back-and-forth you hate, Niki. I got to thinking more about how this kind of stuff is bullying, and I can't help but call him out.)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The goal of the Fed isn't inflation, it's the monetization of the US dept. They are printing dollars and using them to by our own Treasuries. Later when they sell the Treasuries they bought with phony money they will be fooling those buying these Treasuries into paying off the US dept. Unfortunately the most important buyers of treasuries are on to the scam and US tresuries will just drop in value to reflect the monetization. Any private businessman doing something similar would be thrown in jail, but if the plan works it might save the US economy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
This is not where we disagree. The difference between the thinking left and the thinking right is the nature of their solutions, not who they choose to blame for the various things that go wrong.
For instance, my opposition to socialism is that I don't accept it as a viable solution based on its track record as a system, and its centralized design which I think assumes leadership to have a moral and mental superiority over the people. I don't blame it for the mess we're in, I blame war, I blame war on the size of the govt, etc. But what I blame is not important. It's what solutions I think would work, or wouldn't. I don't believe the individual consumer would buy war, or bailouts, or the new world order. I suspect that they might buy moronic stuff like a fence in between the US and Mexico, so it's not a solution by itself.
As for Muslims in Europe, I don't have a problem with them being there, but it's fairly obvious to me that they were put there through manipulation. If I were to guess, I would say neocons, since they created both the wars and the changes to European immigration laws necessary to create the situation. If I were to guess at why, I'd say they probably assumed this would create conflict, and they wanted to rally Europe up against the Islamic world. Maybe a world war is in the mix, I don't know. It's a dangerous game someone's playing. Outcomes are far harder to predict than human reactions themselves. I don't think the Islamic Republic of Europe is in the neocon plans, but it could happen. Already I see the war losing support in Europe because muslims vote. The only thing you can truly expect is chaos.
Frem,
Alas, that statement could be made of most posters. I just filter out the attacks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME