The SovereignLife Blog

As I’ve gotten older I’ve begun to value peace more and more. It wasn’t always that way. In fact, as a young boy growing up in the UK, I was totally immersed in war. And the highlight of each week was the publication of the latest “war comics” which were very common in Britain in those days. These were the wonderful tales of heroism and victory over the German “hun”, and they certainly shaped my early consciousness.

One unexpected by-product of my avid reading of these war comics was that I began to discover some artistic talent and started drawing detailed images of mostly German military hardware – airplanes, tanks and the like. Even then, at my rather tender age, I recognised the military innovation of the Germans. This keen interest in German firepower earned me the nickname “Fritz” – which stayed with me into my early 20s.

My son still has those original comics – some apparently valued at $90 or more per edition on eBay! Not that he’s selling.

My youthful admiration of war not withstanding, I have come to the conclusion that war, far from defending and enlarging freedom, is in fact the enemy of freedom. No war has ever been fought that has not dehumanised those involved in some way, that has not had undesirable unintended consequences, and which has not resulted in ever greater powers being seized by, or granted to, the state.

President Obama, the misnamed Nobel Peace Laureate, sees peace as the militaristic provision of security – and unwittingly or otherwise fills the world with armaments, threats of war and ultimately the complete destruction of true security.

I value freedom more than anything else. To me freedom means being able to think what I want, say what I want, and take action as I want – while obviously granting that same right to others. When I look at war and the threat of war, all I can see is the trashing of freedom – and it gets me really angry.

For those of you who also have a passion for peace and freedom, I urge you to read this compelling essay by Chris Floyd – Unnatural Acts: Breaking The Fever of Militarism.

Faber: The Greek bailout won’t succeed and you should buy gold every month. Watch Marc Faber’s commentary HERE.

I was in London when the airplanes crashed into the World Trade Centre – and viewed the shocking pictures from the street, looking at TVs inside an adjacent shop.

I have never accepted the official government-mandated conspiracy theory, that Osama Bin Laden was responsible. Besides, he never put his hand up after and said so, something I’m sure he would have done if he had been responsible.

9/11 was the launch pad for the so-called “war on terror”, which I prefer to define as a war on freedom. I say that because since that fateful day we have witnessed the disintegration of the American Dream. Whatever America was, it isn’t any longer – and all as a result of the impetus given to the US government’s totalitarian impulse since 9/11.

Nor did I accept that aircraft could bring down two huge buildings in a free-fall demolition-type of destruction – and even bring down the third building, without any aircraft hitting it at all.

To me it has always had the smell of a “false flag” operation – something carried out with the purpose of pointing the finger at an enemy and being used as a catalyst for going to war.

To question 9/11 is to become a heretic – a non-believer in the accepted truth. In fact, in my experience many people don’t believe the official line, but are afraid to speak out publicly. But all that is changing, and I see a new push from a wide range of courageous people to bring this subject into the mainstream of public discourse.

I’m not so much interested in alternate conspiracy theories, but facts that dispute the official conspiracy theory. And it appears that these facts are piling up.

There are new demands for a real investigation into 9/11. An investigation that is not political and does not have limited terms of reference.

One of the leading groups pushing for this is Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth – which consists of over 1,000 professional engineers and architects plus a growing band of supporters. They have amassed a considerable amount of evidence that doesn’t square with the official story.

Another sane voice that is questioning the official line is Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury under Ronald Reagan’s first presidential term. His recent essay The Road to Armageddon is well worth a read.

What makes a new investigation so important is that 9/11 was a turning point, an event of monumental significance, which became the justification for the waging of the “war on terror”. If it was proven that 9/11 was some sort of inside job, a false flag operation, it would undermine that whole “war on terror” enterprise – and perhaps save us from a potential World War III scenario.

I think there is a momentum building up, and wouldn’t be at all surprised if this doesn’t end up being a major story before 2010 is up.

As I have said many times before, war is always used as cover for increasing the power of the state and limiting individual freedom. The so-called “war on terror” is its latest manifestation. However, there are other wars – or pending wars – that are also used to militarise the state and trample on ordinary people.

One of these long standing wars is the one between Israel and the Palestinians (not to mention the potential wars between Israel and either Lebanon, Syria and Iran – or all three).

The Israeli/Palestinian war is never-ending. Its latest manifestation is the ongoing blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip – an act of war in itself.

The trouble with the present conflict, and the heated discussions and disagreements it generates around the world, is that going back and looking at historical causes is never countenanced. People want to discuss only the latest rocket attack or suicide bomber, without any apparent interest as to the “why” – and without any historical context.

Well, I’ve just finished reading an illuminating account of the “why” which was published back in 1967, and which goes to prove that history really does repeat itself.

If you have any interest in understanding the historical causes of the Middle East quagmire, then I urge you to read Murray Rothbard’s 1967 essay – War Guilt in The Middle East – and see if it doesn’t shed some much-needed light on one of the world’s most protracted conflicts.

A fitting postscript to the above is this short video by a Jewish Holocaust survivor - Dr Hajo Meyer – commenting on present-day Israel and the Palestinians.

Hilarious, but also serious, video from the UK – showing a couple of guys taking “freedom” to the streets.

Many people have reasonably asked why Switzerland has not been targeted by terrorists – seeing as they certainly have freedoms worth “hating”. In fact, on closer inspection, they have many freedoms the rest of us don’t have – as this interesting essay reveals: Why The Failing US And EU Should Follow The Swiss Government Model

Here’s a very interesting essay by Peter Schiff on possible future scenarios that could arise from the current debt situation facing Greece – and how the way that situation is handled could impact on both the euro and the dollar.

Sometimes it’s necessary for one’s sanity to stand back from the idiocy of war, the pain of economic recession, the systemic bureaucratic corruption, and all other government-generated mayhem – and to take look at the bigger and more optimistic picture. Watch this video – an innovative mix of original music and words of the great scientist/communicator Carl Sagan and others – for some inspiring relief!

I don’t really like commenting on politicians, as I see them as liars, opportunists and worse. But sometimes you read something and it just makes your hair stand on end.

Mrs Clinton’s recent Middle East jaunt has brought plenty of airtime and online publicity, as she played her role in ramping up the rhetoric against Iran (remember the lead up to the Iraq war anybody?).

Today she was accusing Iran of becoming a military dictatorship. Oh my! To think of it!

No mention of the military dictatorship that was Pakistan, which the USA happily supported, nor any mention of Egypt, another dictatorship. Both US allies.

Then she was fulminating from her sojourn in Saudi Arabia – a wonderful democracy if ever there was one! Apparently, the Saudi Morality Police were out in full force on Valentines Day – trying to stop the sale of Valentine’s cards! And let’s not talk about the chopping off of hands for a robbery conviction.

I’m afraid all this Iran phobia doesn’t wash at all. America is deep up to its armpits in unsavoury connections with less than democratic regimes. And ranting about a country that has not started an aggressive war for as long as I can remember, while cuddling up to notoriously nasty regimes, smells of hypocrisy to me.

Is offshore banking legal? This is a question often asked these days, as various nations seek to clamp down on offshore tax havens and offshore banking. And while such banking may raise eyebrows in certain quarters, or invite disapproving comments from politicians seeking to balance budgets and maximise tax revenue, the fact is banking offshore is perfectly legal.

However, it helps if one first clarifies the situation by defining the words “offshore” and “tax havens”.

Offshore simply means some place other than your home country. So if you’re in the USA, then having a bank account in the UK would be considered offshore. Or if you live in Australia and have a bank account in Singapore then that would be an offshore bank account. Neither of these places are known tax havens of course, but never-the-less they would be considered “offshore” if you banked there but didn’t live there.

So while an offshore account may very well be in a tax haven, it doesn’t have to be.

There are various negative associations with the term “tax haven”, as such countries are widely perceived to be places where unsavoury characters do shady business dealings or worse, engage in money laundering. But the truth is, a tax haven is simply a country where either no income tax is paid, or less tax compared with other countries.

The motivation for a country to become a low tax or no tax haven is usually to gain some competitive advantage. They do this by offering financial and incorporation services designed to attract foreign business – and boost the local economy. And this is usually the essence of the hostility towards such places. Most developed Western countries have a large socialist component to their economies, where high taxes are used to fund various social welfare programmes. So when some countries lower or eliminate their income tax it naturally attracts those who seek to pay less tax – both companies and individuals.

The fact is, any sovereign nation has the right to determine its own tax rules and the rate of tax they seek to impose. And it’s perfectly natural for there to be tax competition in the world. Without it, nations would find no barrier to raising taxes and would no doubt exploit all of us in the process. Low tax and no tax nations provide an important counterbalance to the high tax countries and the existence of such tax competition is healthy and should not be discouraged.

So if you see the advantage of banking in another country – offshore – then you are certainly free to do so. And provided you live in a country without currency exchange controls – which is most of the developed world – then transferring your funds to an overseas bank account is a simple matter, and like I said 100% legal. However, there can be complications – if you don’t know your own country’s rules and regulations.

Give you one example. If you’re a US citizen or resident, then you are obliged to report the existence of any offshore bank account with a balance of $10,000 or more – the existence of accounts where the aggregate balance is over $10,000. You’re allowed to have as much money as you like in the account – but are required to report it. Most other countries do not have this requirement.

Another example would be the existence of various funds transfer reporting requirements. These vary from country to country, but let’s say you wanted to transfer $50,000 from you domestic bank account to an offshore one – then it’s highly likely the transaction would be reportable by your bank, meaning they would have to notify the relevant authorities that it has been done.

Given these potential reporting requirements another obvious question would be, “So what are the advantages of banking offshore?”. And the potential answers are many. It could be to seek more security, more financial privacy, to diversify currencies, or that overseas business dealings make having such a bank account necessary.

Having access to foreign currencies is becoming increasingly useful, given the wild fluctuations between the value of such currencies. Right now, for example, the USD is on a long term downward trend, due to the negative economic fundamentals affecting the country. This means that anyone inside the USA, whose funds are exclusively in US dollars, is likely to see the value of their savings erode over time. Holding such savings in another, stronger currency would be a rational decision, and using an offshore bank to achieve this would be a sane financial strategy.

At the end of the day, given the increasing global nature of living and business, it’s perfectly natural for people to consider opening bank accounts in other countries if they can see any personal gain to be had from it. And as long as that demand exists there will always be ways to bank offshore.