Interesting that the buzz surrounding the newly observed phenomenon of Americans wanting to give up their US citizenship is not letting up. Could be a major trend in the making.
More American Expatriates Give Up Citizenship
The news out of Europe is all bad. “Greece is no longer in the position to take up money at the financial markets and is thereby in fact bankrupt,” says an editorial in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
And while this is happening, gold is rising. And it’s not hard to see why. As the negative perception of sovereign debt default spreads, so does the search for alternative safe havens. Once government bonds come under the microscope and various nations start looking like a bad risk, then the traditional safe haven of choice (government bonds) is undermined.
One London gold dealer has stated that gold’s target on the charts is now $1,226. Gold prices in euro have risen 27.5% in the last year, so any continuing momentum in gold’s rise will only see more investors enter the gold market – as one alternative to bonds.
Expect the unexpected.
For a more in-depth look at gold, and how you can get a piece of it, I invite you to download my free e-report In Gold We Trust.
The so-called “Tea Party” movement is a scam. It’s turning into a clandestine propaganda tool of the Republicans. What started out as a promising movement for freedom is becoming a “let off steam” outlet for disgruntled voters – a way of herding them into an acceptable political corner.
Why do I know this? Simple. They are all for reducing taxes and the size of government – in every area except militarism. While they wax lyrical about the excessive spending of the Democrats in the health care arena – $940 billion over 10 years – they have nary a word to say about the $680 billion Department of Defence budget for 2010 alone, or the requested budget for 2011 of $708 billion. Not to mention the $1.05 trillion dollars allocated to date (2010) on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why is it a scam? Because to pose as limited government advocates and draw in popular support for such a movement, while leaving the elephant in the living room of military spending untouched, is to undermine the goal of limited government.
There is no way to limit government unless you limit its ability to project power. With undeclared wars popping up all over the place and a future of unlimited military spending to fight the never-ending ‘war on terror’, it’s obvious the US government will be bloated, not limited. And to pose as advocates for limited government, while at the same time supporting unlimited militarism, is fraudulent.
The Tea Party is just one more example of the futility of politics. Just when you are getting sick to the stomach of government excess, along comes a so-called limited government movement that has already been seconded by the state and its minions.
No tea party for me thank you!
Fortunately, there is something much more realistic that will limit government – the fact they run out of money!
Stephen Hawking has been widely quoted on the net regarding his comments that alien life is certainly probable, but that we should not assume such contact would be of benefit to us. He concluded that, “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”
This is a very interesting observation and raises an even more interesting question.
Here on earth our history has been one of conquest of “inferior” humans – usually under the assumption that they are sub-human in some way, animals even, and that we are superior. In fact, when you think of it, this is how we usually describe our enemies as well.
This self-appraisal of ourselves, as having more rights than other “lesser” humans, is what has justified various colonial adventures in the past – and does so to this day, as in Afghanistan. We are lead to believe the Afghanis are primitive in a way. After all, they subjugate their women and do other horrible things. So they must be “less” deserving than us of any rights to their own life. That’s why it doesn’t matter that we kill them in the process of trying to “educate” them.
This is how we devalue the lives of others – by assuming they are less than us – less human in a way.
But here’s the rub. Our understanding of freedom is wonderfully expressed in the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What this declaration unequivocally states is that all men (women included) are created equal – and are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, being primitive is no reason to be granted less freedom. Being ignorant or under-educated is no reason to be treated as sub-human.
And the best way to illustrate this point is to ask a role-reversal question that arises out of Stephen Hawking’s observations: “If aliens were to arrive on earth, and because of their superior technical status see us as primitive, then how could we complain if they treated us as slaves, or slaughtered us by the millions?”
If it’s okay for us to devalue the lives of others, simply because they are less-educated or more primitive, and to use that evaluation as an excuse to deny such people their natural rights, then it’s certainly okay for alien “visitors” to treat us likewise.
This clearly illustrates that our “superiority” is surely relative. It’s relative to where we’ve come from ourselves (in the past) and certainly relative to any other advanced lifeforms out there in the universe.
If we, in our relative primitiveness, would demand that aliens treat us right, and respect our right to life and freedom – then we, in turn, should also respect the right-to-life of every single human here on earth. Without such moral consistency we are no better than any hypothetical aliens that would obliterate us without a second thought.
To be concerned about freedom is to be concerned about the very structure of society – both political and economic – and whether such a society is conducive to freedom. As Andrew J Galambos said, “Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (i.e. 100%) control over his own property”. And keep in mind he defined property in three forms – primordial (your life and body), primary (the intangibles like your thoughts, actions, ideas etc.) and secondary (the tangibles like your home, car computer etc.).
So to be concerned about one’s freedom is to be concerned about how to protect one’s property – and what type of society is best for that purpose.
This is why the philosophical difference between communism and capitalism matters (as in state-directed economic activity vs market-directed) – in that one confiscates property outright, while the other is more protective of it.
This same philosophical difference can also be expressed as collectivism vs individualism – where only the latter is conducive to property protection (i.e. freedom).
And because these philosophical differences drive both the political and economic reality we have to live with, then we must be concerned with the “bigger picture” – because it has a direct impact on our own present and future freedom.
One “tool” to assist in observing major trends – towards more or less freedom – is to look very carefully at the global hot spots. These “hot spots” are places where tectonic shifts can take place, and represent an early warning system in a way.
Right now, the economic “hot spot” is the euro zone. Why? Because it is there that the next economic crisis is developing. It’s starting with Greece, on the verge of financial default. The big issue here is whether to bail it out (save the bond investors), or let it declare “bankruptcy” (let the bond investors lose).
The choice is stark, but whichever way the decision finally goes it will have a huge impact on our future. If Greece defaults and bond investors lose, then Greece will likely pull out of the euro zone and reinstate the drachma. That will allow it to devalue and work its way back to economic health.
On the other hand, if the EU/IMF decide to bail out Greece, then other EU countries will soon be lining up for similar bail-outs – and the bond investors will have been saved at the expense of taxpayers.
Whatever happens, this new crisis has revealed the dark and unstable underbelly of the nation state – that it continues to exist only because people lend such states money. They have always done so because lending to governments has been considered as the most secure of investments.
But that perception could change drastically. If Greece is just the tip of the iceberg (which I certainly believe it is), then it will be followed by Portugal, Italy, Ireland – even the UK. And if the UK were to fall under the spotlight, then most certainly the USA will also.
Why does all this matter? It matters because such a falling of nation state dominos would completely undermine the financial foundation of nation states – their ability to stay afloat by borrowing. If investors suddenly wake up one morning to find that investing in government bonds is no longer safe, but poses significant risk, then governments everywhere will find it harder to raise the money they need to prop up their welfare/warfare excesses. But more importantly, investors will have to find a new “safe haven” for their money. (Hint: something shiny)
Just as the euro zone is now a “hot spot” economically, the Middle East is the hot spot politically. The Middle East is the most volatile region on earth. There is the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the current war in Afghanistan. There is the constant threat of war between Israel and either Syria, Lebanon or Iran (take your pick), as well as the festering sore of Palestine (especially Gaza) and the ongoing flashpoint it represents.
All this “war” potential sits on the world’s major source of energy – oil. So any flare up there will immediately impact on global oil markets and the price of oil. This obviously affects every single country on earth and can potentially devastate any nascent recovery underway.
The worrying thing is this: while it’s obviously the most unstable part of the planet – geopolitically speaking – it’s also the place where politicians seem determined to cause a crisis.
Just consider the threat of war with Iran. If that actually happens, then all bets are off as to the consequences. Worst case scenario is the beginning of World War III. If Israel attacks Iran in a pre-emptive strike, and Iran retaliates defensively – you can be sure the US will muscle in on Israel’s side. That escalation will quickly bring regional chaos as other areas erupt into war and mayhem. And it would only take one nation (Israel?) to fire the first nuclear weapon to create a game-changer of planet-busting proportions.
Now you’d think this horrendous scenario would cause politicians to stand back and take a deep breath. But no. They are instead inflaming an unstable situation on a daily basis. Instead of trying to calm the waters of international discourse, they are instead raising the stakes and using both rhetoric and political grandstanding to beat chests and engage in dangerous “war talk”.
None of this bodes well for freedom.
The breakout of any crisis in these two global hot spots will directly affect you and everyone else on the planet – and are thus an existential threat to your freedom.
David Bond, a thoroughly normal Englishman, decided to leave without a trace – and attempt a disappearing act from the UK. It’s an instructive story: Can You Disappear in Surveillance Britain?
“…. in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.” Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 10.
Not much has changed since Hitler wrote those words, and expert liars are all around us. But for some reason they congregate in the political class, those who profess to lead us. And whatever you may think of Hitler and his ideas, there is no doubt he had a good grip on what the big lie was, and what makes it effective.
Trouble is, these days we are inclined to think that the worst of leaders, the grossest of politicians, lived in the past, not the present. We obviously don’t consider our current political class to be arch-purveyors of the big lie – or people wouldn’t collapse in grief when a bunch of political leaders die – as the recent air crash involving Polish president Lech Kaczynski and other government officials illustrates.
But the biggest error we could make is to assume that only Nazis were capable of espousing big lies. Not so! This well-tried propaganda strategy is alive and well in the epicentre of the free world – the USA (and of course everywhere else besides).
Just consider the war in Iraq. It was waged on the basis of the “big lie” strategy – to accuse Saddam Hussein of having weapons of mass destruction (against all the evidence). This big lie worked wonderfully. It mobilised the whole western world against Iraq and caused mass destruction – which is still going on.
You’d think the truth as it finally came out, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, would cause us all to stop and contemplate this big lie strategy and to see it for what it is. For surely witnessing it first hand (as in the Iraq war) should be enough to make us immune to it in the future.
Unfortunately not! Worse than that, we are witnessing the big lie in action right now – against Iran. The big lie in this case is that Iran is bent on waging war against us – in the near future – using the nuclear weapons it is secretly developing.
Just as with Iraq, Iran is being demonised – accused of building a nuclear weapon, when no such evidence exists. They have on-the-ground nuclear inspectors from the IAEA conducting 24/7 surveillance, who continue to confirm that Iran is not diverting any of it’s enriched uranium to further enrichment for weaponising purposes.
This are facts. But facts be damned. There’s a big lie to get out and about. You see, the effectiveness of the big lie is that you don’t have to prove it – you simply have to utter it often enough and loudly enough. And that’s what is happening. And of course the big lie must be promulgated by those who are considered trustworthy enough to believe – our political leaders.
The result of this big lying is that more and more people start to think, “there must be something to it, if all our leaders are saying it”.
The truth is our dear leaders are big liars extraordinaire. They are masters of the dark art of lying. It’s in their nature. The political governance system attracts these types of people – people who lie to an extent that most of us find hard to believe.
The big lie propaganda strategy is so obvious that no one apparently believes it’s possible. People would rather believe President Obama than consider him to be a liar – capable of bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear war for his own nefarious ends.
But just watch how this plays out. The first stage of the big lie strategy on Iran is already well-advanced. The lie is “out”, and people are having doubts. Maybe the Iranians do have a bomb? Maybe we can’t take the risk?
The next stage of this plan is the imposition of “crippling sanctions”. Of course these won’t work. They are not intended to work. They are simply a strategy for ratcheting up the big lie – and to lay the groundwork for a military confrontation. When the Iranians still refuse to give up their nuclear technology, even during sanctions, then the stage will have been set for asserting: “Well, we’ve tried everything and only one option remains – to bomb the Iranians to kingdom come.”
The big lie is alive and well, and works on many levels. For consider this: First the Iranians are accused, without a shred of hard evidence, that they are secretly building the bomb. Then war is initiated clandestinely. Yes, war with Iran has already begun. And when “crippling” sanctions are enforced, then another war strategy will have been enacted. For do not forget that crippling sanctions are an act of war. And if you don’t believe me, then ask yourself how the US government would respond if it were possible for Iran to initiate and rally world powers to put such sanctions on the USA? Of course you know the answer, the US would treat such behaviour as an act of war and retaliate accordingly.
So not only does the big lie involve telling lies in order to create the climate for war, but it actually starts a war without calling it such – and calls sanctions “diplomacy” instead.
We may believe we live in more enlightened times, when people such as Hitler and his propaganda war machine no longer exist, but the truth is much more sobering. We live in even more dangerous times, where those who conspire to rule us will go to extraordinary lengths to realise their power-lusting dreams – even if it means lying their face off and killing a few hundred thousand human beings in the process.
Addendum: A rational analysis by Ray McGovern (ex US Army Officer and CIA Analyst) on the assumed “threat” posed by Iran – Is Iran Really a Threat?
The truth about Iran: Can you pass this Iran quiz?
One of the things that continues to amaze me is the faith people have in governments to “fix” stuff. Have a problem – make a law. That causes another problem? No worries. Make another law.
The slippery slope – which became apparent in 2008 – where the sub-prime mortgage debacle caused financial panic chapter 1, is now heading to chapter 2, sovereign debt default.
Just as before, where “too big to fail” banks were bailed out in order to stem perceived systemic risk, the current sovereign debt crisis is ushering in a repeat performance – where once again lenders are to be bailed out at the expense of present and future tax payers.
When the sub-prime debt crisis hit, it was all the toxic mortgage-backed securities on the bank’s ledgers that caused political apoplexy – and the sudden desire to “protect” banks instead of letting them fail.
Now the same logic is being applied to nation states. They are obviously “too big to fail” also, and besides there is a “need” to bail out those who have lent to such states (banks again).
Greece is currently in the firing line. They are being promised a bail-out by other EU nations, who will all have to cough up proportional amounts to rescue Greece (read rescue holders of Greek bonds). This rescue will be funded by EU tax payers – once again burdened with the unwise investment decisions of others.
Let Greece default I say. Let it declare bankruptcy, the same as any individual would do in a similar situation. Sure, this means the creditors will take a “hair cut”, but that’s par for the course in the world of investing. Why should bond investing be immune to risk?
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard once again tackles the thorny issues with a lot more depth and insight than is usually to be found from any mainstream news source. See Maastricht madhouse fuels EMU-wide contagion from Greece.
Apparently 500 American citizens and green card holders said goodbye to America forever in the last quarter of 2009 – double the number of expatriations in all of 2008.
Bill Frezza asks the pertinent question: “What do we do if the rich start to leave?”
And Lew Rockwell has his own view on Renouncing American Citizenship
Here’s a brilliant short segment from an historical interview of economist Milton Friedman by Phil Donahue. It’s only 2:30 minutes long, but it packs more punch on the proven fact that the free market is the only form of social organisation capable of creating more wealth for all – than all the socialist claptrap put together.
