Quote: (02-11-2016 04:52 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

The next step is a ban on cash. They start by banning large cash transactions, large bills, and gradually work their way down. This way the central bank & gov have total control.

Many dumbasses in America are already calling for a ban on $100 bills for 'convenience'. I hear now you can't even withdraw cash over $10,000 without your bank asking you a bunch of nosey questions even though IT'S YOUR FUCKING MONEY NOT THEIRS.

It's $3,000 actually. They are required to report transactions larger than that amount for "money laundering".

Quote: (02-13-2016 02:22 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Quote: (02-12-2016 08:06 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Quote: (02-12-2016 12:34 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

^ You say find a safe neighborhood when shit hits the fan, in what country?

It's obvious the debt will not be paid or wiped off the books, as always the people will have to bear the burden.

In Canada, we aren't able to deduct home mortgage interest against our primary income.

I wouldn't believe all this propaganda against China, they are busy buying up resources around the world.

If you believe things would turn to anarchy your best bet would be to invest in your own castle. Not like the ones the Brits and Euros built to defend against each other but you get the drift.

A tough building, guns, ammo and food will fair better than some regular white picket fence and Mr Nice guy homeowner.

I've been mulling over my long term gameplan and have considered the possibility of global default and or societal collapse, but ultimately decided to ignore this possibility. Frankly, it may or may not happen, but actively adjusting your lifestyle and career plans in anticipation of complete collapse is folly.

The opportunity cost is just not worth it. A strategy that is optimal for preparing yourself for collapse is extremely sub-optimal for maximizing your ROI in a world where the collapse doesn't happen. Against this real loss of ROI, you gain very dubious benefits in the event the collapse actually occurs. If we get complete anarchy, the variables are infinite and the progression of events completely unknowable. In such an environment, whatever puny preparations you've made to withstand the maelstrom will likely be blown away like a house of cards.

So yeah, I'd definitely buy weapons and ammo and learn how to use them, stockpile basic supplies, and try to form networks with other men in my area and the world at large, but these are things I'd do even if I was sure no collapse was on the horizon. What I wouldn't do is make real sacrifices in my long term career development and lifestyle because those would represent very real sacrifices for very marginal (and hypothetical) benefits if the collapse occurs.

Poor tactic as well. Your best bet is to borrow a page from what criminal gangs do and have a shared group facility that you can double as a bugout location.

Negative interest rates are suicide

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-12...al-economy

Quote: (02-12-2016 09:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

For years liberals in the USA pointed to the "Scandinavian Model" as the best system in the world. For anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge, you could see the Scandinavian Model was a house of cards.

The Scandinavian Model worked because the people who were living there were Scandinavians: Hard working, altruistic, naive, conformous, confident in strangers. You could give a lot away in taxes because you knew you'd get it back. It was probably more of an expression of the people who lived there than a pre-requisite for success, a lot of systems would probably have done well.

Now with mass immigration from failed states, it's imploding. Noone wants to be the person who gives away and doesn't receive a lot back. So not only is immigration and immigrants a huge drain on the system directly, but it also affects the remaining people there, they're not as confident in the system and willing to bet that they'll get back what they put into it.

Quote: (02-21-2016 08:30 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

Quote: (02-12-2016 09:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

For years liberals in the USA pointed to the "Scandinavian Model" as the best system in the world. For anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge, you could see the Scandinavian Model was a house of cards.

The Scandinavian Model worked because the people who were living there were Scandinavians: Hard working, altruistic, naive, conformous, confident in strangers. You could give a lot away in taxes because you knew you'd get it back. It was probably more of an expression of the people who lived there than a pre-requisite for success, a lot of systems would probably have done well.

Now with mass immigration from failed states, it's imploding. Noone wants to be the person who gives away and doesn't receive a lot back. So not only is immigration and immigrants a huge drain on the system directly, but it also affects the remaining people there, they're not as confident in the system and willing to bet that they'll get back what they put into it.

Yep, this is exactly right. These kinds of systems rely largely on the types of people who live with them. Europeans are made for this, others not so much. In America, this wouldn't work because the general sentiment is very individualistic. Which I don't judge as better or worse, but simply different and this has to be understood. Bernie Schmanders doesn't get that the US and Europe are completely different simply because of different mindsets of the people living there. And that's a good thing. I don't want the US to turn into Europe, neither do I want Europe to turn into the US. But that's what "they" are doing right now. - Trying to force European-type systems on the US population while pushing individualism onto Europeans through media-indoctrination and miss-immigration which disrupts the social trust that existed in monolithic European societies until a few years back. Contrary to popular believe on this forum, the Scandinavian Model works excellent actually. But only with Scandinavians. So the only major flaw is them not embracing nationalism.

After my first retirement, I was an Exec for a large company and I decided to test the system over 6 months and cash my paycheck (instead of direct deposit) at the bank (which is one of the top 5 largest in the US) that the check was written against. It was for over 10K and only twice over my 6 month test period did they have the cash on hand (7.69%). I rotated through 4 of the branch offices. This was over a decade ago and I doubt that it is any better and probably has only gotten worse. I usually got the cash the next day, but sometimes it was 2 or 3 days and one time I waited 5 days. I chatted with the CFO about this one time just to see his reaction and he shrugged and said, get used to it NTP.

Negative interest rates are a form of financial repression as is limiting how much cash you are allowed to take out of the bank or use in transactions. Capital controls will ensue to include, but are not limited to, limiting cash you can withdraw from banks (look at ATMs that have been training people for so long) or the types of notes in circulation or those notes that will be accepted. This will escalate to things like being limited in how retirement monies can be invested or liquidated as the doors will be closed unless you have assets around the world and even then GACTA will be FACTA on steroids to monitor the movement and placement of (financial) assets. I recall in 2000 how they were floating trial balloons in the U.S. House of Representatives talking about mandating retirement monies (to include 401k´s) into U.S. Treasury Bonds. I know this has popped up on the radar again 15 years later. What happens at the point where the Treasury Bonds are a net loss with inflation (I posit that we have already passed it) and one needs to purchase goods and service with their retirement monies. People are going to receive a haircut for which they did not ask and they will become relatively more impoverished and pissed off.

You do not need to be the fastest lion, you just do not want to be the slowest gazelle.

Does anyone have information as to what percentage of banks (or a list of nations) around the world have gone to negative interest rates? I know of Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands and the ECB.

Quote: (02-21-2016 08:30 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

Quote: (02-12-2016 09:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

For years liberals in the USA pointed to the "Scandinavian Model" as the best system in the world. For anyone with an ounce of economic knowledge, you could see the Scandinavian Model was a house of cards.

The Scandinavian Model worked because the people who were living there were Scandinavians: Hard working, altruistic, naive, conformous, confident in strangers. You could give a lot away in taxes because you knew you'd get it back. It was probably more of an expression of the people who lived there than a pre-requisite for success, a lot of systems would probably have done well.

Now with mass immigration from failed states, it's imploding. Noone wants to be the person who gives away and doesn't receive a lot back. So not only is immigration and immigrants a huge drain on the system directly, but it also affects the remaining people there, they're not as confident in the system and willing to bet that they'll get back what they put into it.

The elephant in the room you are ignoring, is the flaw with the Nordic System required that women work.

Once women started to work, they simply did not have enough kids to keep the giant govt. Ponzi scheme going. Without a growing population, there would not be enough future workers to tax to pay for all the govt. programs.

Combined with the fact the govt. will always be inefficient, but that is besides the big point.

Without enough kids being born, you have no choice but for immigration, and immigration has now been in effect long enough to see the drastic and dangerous results on their system.

Quote: (02-22-2016 12:40 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Without enough kids being born, you have no choice but for immigration, and immigration has now been in effect long enough to see the drastic and dangerous results on their system.

Then why are none of these immigrants working?

Maybe the Latino and Asian immigrants in the US work and pay taxes, but that's not the case for the North Africans and Arabs coming to Europe. They simply refuse to work (and are not required to!) while receiving an enormous amount of monetary support from the government.

Politicians have been pushing the narrative about "how we need migration to take care of our ageing population" for decades, yet every objective report shows that these immigrants are a massive burden.

I think this forced immigration serves other purposes:
- decrease wages.
-increase public debt (and subsequently increase income tax on employees and SMEs to make banks even richer and to prevent people from succeeding in life through hard work).
- increase criminality to give the government free reign to destroy privacy and free speech and control every aspect of our lives.
- destroy national identity and natural solidarity such that people don't organise to oppose the decline.

I will await the day the Bank of England does it. That will hit Europe hard.

Quote: (02-22-2016 12:40 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The elephant in the room you are ignoring, is the flaw with the Nordic System required that women work.

How so? Please explain.

Quote: (02-22-2016 12:24 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  

Does anyone have information as to what percentage of banks (or a list of nations) around the world have gone to negative interest rates? I know of Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands and the ECB.

Finally someone who sees the forest before the trees... happy to oblige:

   

May I also point out consistent Dollar inflation - I call it the 'tax on the stupid'.

Quote: (02-22-2016 01:21 PM)PhDre Wrote:  

I think this forced immigration serves other purposes:
- decrease wages.
-increase public debt (and subsequently increase income tax on employees and SMEs to make banks even richer and to prevent people from succeeding in life through hard work).
- increase criminality to give the government free reign to destroy privacy and free speech and control every aspect of our lives.
- destroy national identity and natural solidarity such that people don't organize to oppose the decline.

Yup, that's pretty much the gist of it. By the way - watch your spelling, it gives away your location in Europe ;-)

Quote: (02-13-2016 05:09 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

Quote: (02-11-2016 04:52 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

The next step is a ban on cash. They start by banning large cash transactions, large bills, and gradually work their way down. This way the central bank & gov have total control.

Many dumbasses in America are already calling for a ban on $100 bills for 'convenience'. I hear now you can't even withdraw cash over $10,000 without your bank asking you a bunch of nosey questions even though IT'S YOUR FUCKING MONEY NOT THEIRS.

It's $3,000 actually. They are required to report transactions larger than that amount for "money laundering".

I think we all need to seriously consider getting organized behind Bitcoin. I'm split on it to be honest but give it another 10 years or so and there won't be a place left to hide. Perhaps in Asia or S. America - if you can't buy drugs with cash anymore then they will be pissing off a shitload of people with guns and regional power (I don't take drugs but I do follow the money).

I do almost everything in cash - all my bills, almost everything I buy with a few small exceptions. My personal digital footprint is tiny compared with that of the regular Joe Soxpack. I've been fighting hard to keep it that way but cash is an integral aspect of being able to do that. Bitcoin is pretty immature still and I have dabbled in it. However I would not convert a significant portion of my assets into BC - don't trust it enough. That said - long term it may be the only place left to hide from those fucking globalists.

Then again - if we're lucky the whole bloody system blows up in their faces in the next few years. People are tired of being fucked up the ass on all fronts and the migrant invasion may turn out to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. You can only push people so far. They have already:

• Destroyed the nuclear family.
• Destroyed masculinity and replaced it with extreme feminism.
• Destroyed femininity and long established human gender roles.
• Destroyed professional opportunities and vertical mobility for a large portion of the population.
• Destroyed our respective cultural heritage and replaced it with globalism and multiculturalism.
• Destroyed the middle class as we knew it.
• Destroyed freedom of assembly.
• Destroyed free speech and civil liberties.
• Severely limited freedom of movement except for illegal criminals and terrorists.
• Destroyed national autonomies, dismantled borders, and vastly weakened national sovereignty.
• Destroyed personal privacy and replaced it with an Orwellian system of ubiquitous global surveillance.
• Destroyed the value of money via systematic inflation.
  

Shall I go on?

And next they want to destroy cash and replace it with digits in closed private systems only they control. This is not just about the right to hold your own financial assets in your home or a secret location inaccessible to anyone else. No, it goes much further than that. Once they control all of your financial assets they can simply turn YOU off at the flick of switch. You simply won't exist anymore - in effect you will turn into a digital zombie - still walking the earth but in the context of the global system you will be dead. All your financial assets will have disappeared - you won't be able to travel to another place in the world as all the gateways are under their control. You won't be able to get a job, you won't be able to find a place to live, you won't be able to have a relationship.

If you think I'm exaggerating then consider what they have been doing to Roosh and what they may do to him in the future. Already his global (physical) reach has been severely limited simply based on rumors and unsupported accusations. The social media network as you know it today is only the first testing ground for a much more intrusive and powerful system yet to come.

Most of you guys are only looking at a small slice of the big pie that our 'global leaders' have in store for you. They plan nothing less than to turn us all into global debt slaves who are at their very beckon call - they will have total control and we will be nothing but numbers in systems that can be easily eliminated - or perhaps even worse - traded and sold at their whim.

Quote: (02-22-2016 12:40 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

The elephant in the room you are ignoring, is the flaw with the Nordic System required that women work.

Once women started to work, they simply did not have enough kids to keep the giant govt. Ponzi scheme going. Without a growing population, there would not be enough future workers to tax to pay for all the govt. programs.

Without enough kids being born, you have no choice but for immigration, and immigration has now been in effect long enough to see the drastic and dangerous results on their system.

You have a fair point, but it's no elephant in the room. Scandinavian countries are actually at the top of developed country fertility levels, far above Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and East Asian countries, where women stay home a lot more. One reason for this is the generous welfare benefits and laws that permit women to have kids, take a paid year off, and then start working again at the same place, as well as free daycare and kindergarten. In Japan and many other countries, when women have kids their careers are over, so many choose to just go on having their careers. Especially the gifted ones, unfortunately.

The problem is women are simply not encouraged to have kids. If we pressured women to squeeze out a few more screamers we could afford it, no problem. Working class people in Scandinavia can afford 3 holidays in foreign countries a year, it's just a question of priorities. And women having kids is just not a priority.

Quote: (02-22-2016 12:40 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Without enough kids being born, you have no choice but for immigration, and immigration has now been in effect long enough to see the drastic and dangerous results on their system.

That's not correct. Immigration in Scandinavia is strictly asylum seekers and people who come on humanitarian grounds, ie. charity/bullshit excuses to leech off welfare. Unlike other Western countries, Scandinavia practically doesn't have temporarily or permanent immigrants to boost its workforce.

Quote: (02-23-2016 04:20 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

If we pressured women to squeeze out a few more screamers we could afford it, no problem.

Quote: (02-23-2016 07:47 PM)redpillage Wrote:  

Quote: (02-23-2016 04:20 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

If we pressured women to squeeze out a few more screamers we could afford it, no problem.

I don't know if you're being ironic, serious or erm.. half joking, half serious, but I think it's actually within reach. In Norway the politically correctos are saying immigration is making up for the population decline, but plenty of mainstream right people are saying look, the numbers don't add up, immigration is a net loss and we need even more white kids to make up for it. And they're not really getting squashed for saying so, I mean they are correct and nobody refutes their data. Sweden is a lot less open.

So it's hanging in the balance, really – the main problem is it appeals a lot more to lower class women than higher class ones, the ones who should be having 3-4 kids. We'll see what happens. If nationalism gets a boost, so will the population (probably).

Quote: (02-24-2016 12:52 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

Quote: (02-23-2016 07:47 PM)redpillage Wrote:  

Quote: (02-23-2016 04:20 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

If we pressured women to squeeze out a few more screamers we could afford it, no problem.

I don't know if you're being ironic, serious or erm.. half joking, half serious, but I think it's actually within reach. In Norway the politically correctos are saying immigration is making up for the population decline, but plenty of mainstream right people are saying look, the numbers don't add up, immigration is a net loss and we need even more white kids to make up for it. And they're not really getting squashed for saying so, I mean they are correct and nobody refutes their data. Sweden is a lot less open.

So it's hanging in the balance, really – the main problem is it appeals a lot more to lower class women than higher class ones, the ones who should be having 3-4 kids. We'll see what happens. If nationalism gets a boost, so will the population (probably).

I was being facetious of course. Judging by my personal experiences and that of others reported here I don't think encouraging any European woman to get on with producing offspring will go down very well.

Not that I disagree with you at all. My point is that this generation of women is already lost. Behavioral patterns counter to the inherent interest of our own people have been indoctrinated into them since a young age and the result of that leftist/globalist/multicultural brainwashing has been coming to its fruition in the past decade or so. If you can convince a people to stop breeding below its replacement rate then you basically have succeeded in having them commit ethnic suicide.

The only chance white people have at this point is to retreat into ethnically protected regions and expand their reach in coming generations. Right now that applies to some parts of Central Europe (I don't include Russia for a reason). All of Western Europe is pretty much lost - even if the right takes over it will most likely lose the war unless it is prepared to resort to some very controversial measures. Which would be expulsion of all non-Christian populations and entities by the end of this decade. And we all know that will not happen.

Voting in the right at this point will only prolong the war. All other ethnicities are outbreeding white people, who sooner or later will find themselves either subjugated (at best) or killed (at worst).

So yeah - good luck ;-)

Here's an article from one of Norway's 3 biggest newspapers: http://www.aftenposten.no/familieogoppve...5027_1.snd

"Norwegian mothers fare the best [in the world], but still bear way too few children [not just too few, way too few]

[...]

But despite the fact that Norway gives women the world's best conditions when it comes to bringing children into the world, experts are frightened by the steadily declining fertility rates in the country.

[...]

Professor: - It's dramatic
Falling year by year. Now, women get only 1.76 children during their fertile age, down from 1.98 five years ago.

- It is dramatic. Since not all women have children, we must have a birth rate of 2.1 just to maintain the population, says former professor at NTNU and pediatrician Dag Bratlid.

- When some women do not bear children or only one child, others need to bear many children to sustain the population, says gynecologist and professor at the University of Oslo, Anne Eskild.

[...]

Too strong focus on education
Former professor at NTNU and pediatrician Dag Bratlid urges principals and administrations at all the country's educational institutions to come up with a clear helping hand to female students.

- Say to those who have become pregnant: This is the smartest thing you've done!

Bratlid believes attitudes must change too.

- If you want a different development for Norway in the future, more must be done so that women can have children at the beginning of their fertility life cycle rather than at the end of it. There has been a strong focus on the importance of education and career, this has happened at the expense of having children, he says."

So pretty basic manosphere/MRA stuff from two top professors at Norway's best university in a mainstream newspaper, by a female journalist. http://www.aftenposten.no/familieogoppve...5027_1.snd

I think most manosphere people are overdoing it. Norway is one of the world's biggest weapons exporters per capita (all super high tech stuff), some of the world's best special forces soliders are standing in line to get sent to the Middle East just because of their love of blood and battle. Military is mandatory and you get a rifle at discharge. Believe me, jihadists have a long way to go. Even if they outnumbered us 10 to 1, it would be a wipeout with the airforce and heavy artillery belonging to the state. Hell they outnumber us more than 100 to 1 in their home turf in the Middle East, and they can't do shit, casualties after years of deployment can be counted on one hand as far as I know.

Norway still has just 30 murders a year. People don't care much because there aren't too many problems. Most people distrust the media and they oppose immigration. When the problems really increase, people will change from passive majority to active even larger majority. Traitor elites are starting to look for escape routes already, and opposition is mainstream. It just doesn't have the upper hand. Well, one big bomb or a gradual rise in problems until no social scientist can deny it and that's all going to change, traitor elites and their stooges will either have to fuck off, get squashed or repent and reform. That's my main prediction, anyway. And even if I'm wrong, it's still a long time until the North can be won by force. It will grow shittier and shittier until something changes, though.

I was reading stories about the time until Norway and Sweden would be Muslim majorities according to the, at that time, current birthrates. I've not seen any evidence of this changing either. So it is hard for me to believe that the Nordic countries don't suffer from the same self destruction of women putting career over family and in return having to immigrate in foreign people who do not assimilate. It is why the Nordic method could never work. Believing the Nordic method could work, is the same as believing the feminist line of "you can have it all".

You can't. Mother Nature doesn't care, you either play by her rules that affect everyone on earth or you will die trying to fight her. Pushing men down so women can pretend they are men will not keep a country alive for more than a few generations. And that is the simple concept of the Nordic method.

I have been back in the States only 3 times in the last 10 years and I had kept my bills to examine them across that time frame for inflation. I can on imagine what the chart which repillage posted looks like now. My experience was that inflation was increasing from 4-5% to then to 10-11% and back down to 6-7%. It would not be a representative sampling as I was only there for 25-28 days each time. Two percent inflation, my ass; you guys living there now with the conscious awareness year in and year out, must be madder than a hornets nest. How do you cope?

^ Most guys just bang some Tinder hoes and try to save $.

Quote: (02-25-2016 07:20 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

I was reading stories about the time until Norway and Sweden would be Muslim majorities according to the, at that time, current birthrates. I've not seen any evidence of this changing either.

It's true if you assume history works in a linear fashion. The thing is, it doesn't. An example of this kind of logic is people were a lot shorter a century ago, so according to linear logic, vikings would be 5 inches tall. It doesn't work that way. History unfolds in unexpected and rapidly changing ways. Muslims are mainly in Scandinavia for welfare, cut that off, and they'll go back. Go to war and they'll flee or die. Drastic changes in welfare or crime mean drastic changes in politics. But sure, if everything stays the same, they will outbreed us in 3-4 generations. But things rarely stay the same for long. Especially nowadays.

Quote: (02-25-2016 07:20 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

So it is hard for me to believe that the Nordic countries don't suffer from the same self destruction of women putting career over family and in return having to immigrate in foreign people who do not assimilate. It is why the Nordic method could never work. Believing the Nordic method could work, is the same as believing the feminist line of "you can have it all".

You can't. Mother Nature doesn't care, you either play by her rules that affect everyone on earth or you will die trying to fight her. Pushing men down so women can pretend they are men will not keep a country alive for more than a few generations. And that is the simple concept of the Nordic method.

It worked for a generation or two with no need for imported employment or debt and one of the world's highest living standards. No Nordic country has ever used imported employment to any substantial degree, except for interchange of experts. Again, the immigrants are there because leftists and feminists have bleeding hearts and let them in for "humanitarian reasons", and they've never contributed to the work force.

The problem is when women get more power, they do a lot of stupid shit – like open the floodgates for 3rd world underperformers. And when they don't need a man to support them, a lot of men become redundant – female hypergamy unleashed. That creates a lot of angry men.

Working women has its charms, though. Technology means you don't need a person to take care of the home and kids anymore. Maybe having 10 kids is still a full time job, but 3-4 isn't when you have long holidays and 35 hour work weeks. Kindergarten works pretty well. In the US, almost half of all high earning men are working more than 50 hours a week, which means they spend almost all their time working at a job most of them don't like, get stressed out and many keel over from heart attacks, almost never spend time with their wife and kids and friends, etc. Because of laws that limit overtime and the high percentage of working women, men get a lot more spare time to spend with their family or do whatever they like.

The thing that needs to be changed is anti-social female instincts need to be curbed, vagina tingles can't form the basis of state policy. But if that turns out to be impossible in practice when women work and earn then I guess you are right, the system is doomed, although not because it's impossible to keep the system going when a lot of women are working, but because when women are in power they make so many bad decisions.

Quote: (02-26-2016 03:41 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

It's true if you assume history works in a linear fashion. The thing is, it doesn't. An example of this kind of logic is people were a lot shorter a century ago, so according to linear logic, vikings would be 5 inches tall. It doesn't work that way. History unfolds in unexpected and rapidly changing ways. Muslims are mainly in Scandinavia for welfare, cut that off, and they'll go back. Go to war and they'll flee or die. Drastic changes in welfare or crime mean drastic changes in politics. But sure, if everything stays the same, they will outbreed us in 3-4 generations. But things rarely stay the same for long. Especially nowadays.

I am assuming nothing. I am just going by what Sweden has already done. They have simply passed laws and put in place a system that simply destroys their own country, but in the mean time allows women to pretend they are men, at the expense of their country's future existence. Maybe Sweden will get off their ass and cut the welfare before it is too late. But they have no history of doing so, and are so close to it being too late as it is, with nothing like this in sight.

Quote: (02-26-2016 03:41 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

It worked for a generation or two with no need for imported employment or debt and one of the world's highest living standards. No Nordic country has ever used imported employment to any substantial degree, except for interchange of experts. Again, the immigrants are there because leftists and feminists have bleeding hearts and let them in for "humanitarian reasons", and they've never contributed to the work force.

The problem is when women get more power, they do a lot of stupid shit – like open the floodgates for 3rd world underperformers. And when they don't need a man to support them, a lot of men become redundant – female hypergamy unleashed. That creates a lot of angry men.

Working women has its charms, though. Technology means you don't need a person to take care of the home and kids anymore. Maybe having 10 kids is still a full time job, but 3-4 isn't when you have long holidays and 35 hour work weeks. Kindergarten works pretty well. In the US, almost half of all high earning men are working more than 50 hours a week, which means they spend almost all their time working at a job most of them don't like, get stressed out and many keel over from heart attacks, almost never spend time with their wife and kids and friends, etc. Because of laws that limit overtime and the high percentage of working women, men get a lot more spare time to spend with their family or do whatever they like.

The thing that needs to be changed is anti-social female instincts need to be curbed, vagina tingles can't form the basis of state policy. But if that turns out to be impossible in practice when women work and earn then I guess you are right, the system is doomed, although not because it's impossible to keep the system going when a lot of women are working, but because when women are in power they make so many bad decisions.

Yes, I agree here that having women in power is a disaster. The only way to do this would be to remove women's right to vote. But if only men vote, there would be no Nordic System to start with, because a majority of men will not vote in some giant nanny state to wipe their tushies from morning to night, day after day. Men want freedom from oppression and we understand this does include risk. Women want security above risk and vote an ever increasing nanny state to achieve this. The Nordic Model is pretty much the epitome of a Matriarchal society. And it will fail.

Sweden has two choices. Destroy their failed Nordic model method and their oppressive and wasteful govt. or eventually cease to exist as we know it today.

Limiting, decreasing the circulation of, banning cash such as the Euro 500 note or the U.S. 100 bill; or moving cashless can help banking interests, especially in this zero and negative interest rate environment; as well as assist in the implementation of a larger control grid, but there are some serious considerations as to why they will not do this (now or perhaps do it in partially).

These considerations include bribing politicians (in all countries around the world), world-wide gambling, fencing of stolen goods, drugs (especially on Wall St.), prostitution, black markets for smuggling, and mafia organizations around the world. The black market is the real market for a large part of the planet.

Negative Interest rates in the US

http://www.silverdoctors.com/headlines/f...-the-fdic/

It’s incredible; the organization insuring the US banking system has actually purchased bonds that yield negative interest!