SovereignLife Freedom Blog

If you’re active on the net you know there is no shortage of doomsday scenarios. Whether it’s the impending slave society of the New World Order, the start of World War III, the arrival of the Greatest Depression – or global warming, there’s surely plenty to give you nightmares. That’s if you believe it all.

It’s easy to get carried away and imagine worst case scenarios – especially in times of major transition and economic disturbance. And surely history shows us that in a significant economic depression – where people may lose their jobs and even their homes – things can certainly get ugly and new forms of social and political alignments may come into existence. Think “Nazi” of the post-Great Depression era.

For any rational person, the difficulty is in assessing such doomsday scenarios through eyes that can see reality clearly. And this is not easy to do. However, just as there is no smoke without fire, there are no doomsday predictions without something to trigger them.

Take the present economic recession – or the Greater Depression, as some are starting to call it. There is no doubt it’s a serious situation. The economic fundamentals of the major global economies confirm it. You cannot run up trillions of dollars in debt, spend like there’s no tomorrow, and not expect dire consequences.

If you look carefully at all these various economic fundamentals, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that something’s seriously wrong. And while inveterate optimists are already seeing “green shoots” and economic recovery just around the corner, it’s much more likely the depression has some considerable way to go.

And if so, the impact on societies and countries around the world will surely have consequences of some sort.

One essay I’ve just read, by seasoned contrarian investor and commentator Doug Casey, gives a clear and rational analysis of the current situation, and looks at the possible outcomes. Worth the read.

A great article by Eric Margolis exposes the hypocrisy of much of our political blather-scape.

What incensed him to write was a New York Times article, which he says “prudishly denounced Italy’s fun-loving prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, as an aging Lothario. That’s the same newspaper that applauded President George Bush’s trumped-up war against Iraq that left up to one million dead and four million refugees.”

Yes, it does beggar belief that anyone would get their balls in a twist over the sex romps of a political leader while ignoring, or worse condoning, the warmongering and endless killing that is more typical of the political elite.

Talk about inverted morality!

Apparently, as quoted here, the US House of Representatives (representative of what?) has just passed a bill which says – “that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including “obscene” cartoons and drawings–or face fines of up to $300,000.”

My first question would be, “who defines what is obscene?” Surely, the person receiving or viewing the image is the only person who can define such – not some authority elsewhere. Think about it. Censorship is that silly idea that some people are endowed with superior capabilities, allowing them to decide what is best for us to view.

My second question would be, “why on earth is the government getting involved in this – and intruding on those Wi-Fi company’s legitimate business activities?”

But guess what? The measure was approved by a vote of 409 to 2. Wow, what a bunch of freedom-poopers they have over there in the “land of the free”. And not surprisingly, one of the two opposing votes came from Ron Paul and the other from Paul Braun – both Republicans, as not one Democrat voted against this.

They say we get the government we deserve (at least in a democracy), and if that is true – then America is surely in a bad way. Personally, I prefer to think we don’t have much choice in the matter of government at all – regardless of the voting or non-voting system in place.

Of course this new law is just a drop in the ocean of bad legislation – which passes for “governance” in our era. We long ago gave in to Big Brother’s watchful eye over us all, and it’s far too late in the day to be nit-picking over details.

Some prefer to describe this blatant statism using the phrase “Nanny State” – but that’s far too benign for my liking. Most of us consider “nannies” to be nice people who look after young children. Whereas only a cruel and sadistic nanny would treat her wards with the same disregard any “Nanny State” looks after its residents.

No, I prefer Orwell’s terminology of Big Brother and all the associated imagery that goes with it. It’s much more satisfying emotionally, and certainly more accurate politically.

I just love the word secession. It has a good ring about it, and is usually defined as “withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body – and in particular a political state”.

Another interesting fact about secession is it appears to be a trend that is catching on. In 1945 the United Nations had 51 member nations. Now, in 2009, it has 193.

What that tells me is secessionist sentiment is on the rise. And I should know, because being of Scots heritage I’m fully aware that many people in Scotland would like to secede from the UK.

But I think the most interesting prospect for significant secession is within the USA.

We saw it happen to the old USSR – which is now a plethora of independent states – so why not the USA? Sounds like common sense to me, especially given the very different ideas and aspirations of the many inhabitants of that great country.

What could be more logical than the “blue” states separating from the “red” ones, or the western states from the eastern ones, or Alaska and Hawaii dropping off the stars and stripes?

Of course most people will pooh-pooh my idea, but given the dire economic and political situation in America its entirely possible that financial and other pressures will open up cracks in the “union”.

So while the powers that be (PTB) talk endlessly about a New World Order (NWO) and salivate over their ideal of a one world government – the real world is fragmenting rather than consolidating.

Small is Beautiful – a phrase from the past – may be back in fashion.

Just think of it – if city states such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Monaco can thrive and survive, then maybe gargantuan existing states could do a lot better if broken up into smaller parts.

Of course, I have a hidden agenda behind my support for secession – and that is to see such trends accelerate all the way to the rapid rise of city states – states no bigger than cities.

Visualise it: 50 city states to choose from, all vying for your “residency”, all working hard to provide the very best amenities and financial incentives (think very low or no tax) to attract the best people. Competition between micro-nations.

Forget the EU, the USA, the pan-Asian plans – think small and visualise a world where any geographical area is free to secede and make its own way in the world.

Now that’s what I would call a practical recipe for more freedom. Small states means smaller threats to one’s liberties. Smaller wars. Smaller taxes. Smaller number of politicians. And if the mini-state you live in starts to get uppity and obnoxious, you just up and leave and move “next door” to where you are more welcome.

This past couple of weeks I’ve received at least three emails from people saying they now believe offshore banking is illegal, and asking why am I still talking about it.

Of course it is not illegal. Never has been. And when you realise what offshore banking really is, you’ll also realise that expecting it to become “illegal” is incorrect.

An “offshore” bank is simply a bank in a country other than your own. If you live in the USA, then a bank account in Canada is considered “offshore” – to you.

The simple rule for defining offshore – as it relates to your own activities – is to consider any bank account in a country where you do not have residence to be offshore.

In order for offshore banking to become illegal it would be necessary to ban the opening of bank accounts by non-residents. This would cause serious inconvenience to many people and organisations.

To give you a typical example of how offshore banking works for those who are not even interested in “offshore” – consider this typical example: many young people go on long global holidays as backpackers. Many countries make this possible and easier by granting special visas for such a purpose.

One example is that between the UK and New Zealand – which have reciprocal arrangements to allow young people (under 30 I believe) to get 12 month holiday visas. Now, one of the things these young people want to do is to open a local bank account while they are there – which they do.

So here is a clear example of a non-resident opening an account in another country – “offshore” banking in other words. If such arrangements were illegal then the young people I’m talking about would be unable to open bank accounts in their temporary host countries.

In fact, when I was in NZ recently, I noticed how it was possible to have a bank account opened in the UK before even travelling there. Offshore banking again.

Another example of “offshore” banking would be where a foreign corporation sets up business in another country. Naturally such a company would want to open a local corporate bank account. If such banking arrangements were illegal, then it would but a severe restriction on the activities of such companies.

No, opening an offshore bank account is not illegal. But what gives that impression to some is the hot air emitting from the mouths of populist politicians – who find it in their interest to lambast offshore banks as a way of diverting attention from their own country’s economic shortcomings.

I’ve just read an excellent essay by Doug Casey entitled Charity? Humbug! It zeros in on the core of the issue and states bluntly why most charity is destructive – and suggests a few alternatives. Worth the read.

There’s a school of thought in the USA which believes the income tax is illegal, and those who believe this are inclined to want to stop paying taxes on that basis – believing they are in the right.

One man who dedicated his life to this issue is Irwin Schiff – the father of Peter Schiff, the well-known investment advisor and “truth-teller” in regard to the current economic situation.

In this video, Peter Schiff talks about his father and explains how he has always disagreed with his position – for the very same reasons I disagree with it.

To take on the government and challenge it directly, by refusing to pay income tax on the basis of your interpretation of the existing law, is to forget one vitally important fact – the government has the guns.

Or to put it more accurately, the court system cannot be used to challenge the government in this matter of government revenue – taxation. What happens is that the courts will throw out such challenges. So if you consider the courts to be capable of acting as a referee between you and the state – then you will be bitterly disappointed.

The courts are part of the government, so can never be impartial when it comes to any individual challenging the government – especially when it involves attempts to undermine the government’s revenue source, taxation.

Irwin Schiff is still in jail for his tax “crimes” – no doubt put there as a public warning to others who may consider similar tactics. So the lesson to be learned is regardless of your view that a particular tax law is invalid, illegal or whatever – it is of no consequence. The government needs your money – more and more of it – and any attempt to face off on this issue can only lead to tears down the road.

No. If you are intent on denying corrupt governments your money, then you need to be a lot smarter than just making yourself a target.

We all know that Obama campaigned on the theme of “peace”. He was the nearest thing to a peace candidate the establishment could throw up. He was going to withdraw from Iraq. He was going to usher in a new era of diplomacy rather than military adventures. But according to Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com, this makes him the perfect president to start a war with Iran. And if that turns out to be true, then it won’t be the first time politicians have welcomed war as an antidote to economic depression.

Your can read his insightful essay here.

Everyone would like to think the current recession is about to end. That’s human nature – to hope for the best. But are the green shoots we’re being told about real? Is the recent rise in the stockmarket based on real buyers entering the market with renewed confidence?

There are a lot of analysts and commentators who think the opposite – that the supposed “upturn” we are currently experiencing is not a glimpse of the light at the end of the tunnel, but rather a mirage that is obscuring what is yet to come – the real depression.

This video and accompanying commentary is worth noting.

I often get asked about gold – as a safe-haven investment. And when the price is currently on a plateau (although beneath its highest level), it’s often a question of, “why should I invest in gold now, as the price is already too high”.

Of course “too high” is a relative term. It’s high compared with a few years ago, but low if the price goes to say $2,000 per ounce in the future.

I don’t give investment advice – as that is simply a recipe for “how to lose friends and alienate people”. But I am happy to tell people what I do myself – not as advice, but simply letting others know of my own thinking.

If you believe the current economic environment is on the mend, and that the so-called recession is in its last days, then it’s easy to scoff at potential gold prices of $2,000 or even $5,000 per ounce. But if the recession is a prelude to the “Greatest Depression” and our political overlords’ rash spending sprees are going to generate significant inflation down the track, then it’s obvious that gold will go up.

And that’s my own thinking. As a result I like to keep a good percentage of my cash (50%) in gold bullion.

I figure that if the shit hits the fan later this year or next year – and recession deepens, contrary to the “green shoots” theory – then gold is the best place to hold my cash.

My own bullion holdings are with BullionVault and GoldMoney – both of which are reputable and reliable. BullionVault can be used to purchase gold and store it in New York, London or Zurich – and it offers very competitive spreads.

GoldMoney has the advantage of enabling you to also purchase silver and platinum – as well as transact online with these metals to and from other GoldMoney account holders.

Both services are excellent – but BullionVault is quicker to set up, if you’re in a hurry.

Opening an account with either is very similar to opening a bank account – as you will be required to provide ID and proof of address, as well as link your bullion account with a specified bank account. But once you’ve set it up, the process of funding and withdrawing is very simple. And keep in mind, gold bullion is 100% liquid – and should you need to convert it into fiat paper money at any time, it’s as simple as going online and selling part or all of your precious metal holding in return for a wire transfer to your linked bank account.

My gut feeling (based on my reading of economic fundamentals) is gold is going to go a lot higher – and given that all the markers point to eventual inflation, buying gold is a good bet.